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
because they may erre As it was said of the Milesians they were not fools but they could doe foolish things So though they be learned men though great Divines yet may they possibly propose that which is not so They reason points by the Scripture which was wont as is noted to be laid in the middle when they were in Council but since they goe to discourse from Scripture in things doubtful and doe not see all Conclusions in principles of Scripture by way of Intelligence it is possible for them not rightly to apply some principles of Scripture to some particular cases Therefore since they have not a power not to erre we have a power to suspend our Faith nay we cannot give it without evidence of Truth Yet since they have a power to order us we have a Duty not to oppose or disturb And thus this Doctrine makes way for Faith not for Heresie since we may differ from the Opinions of the Church even defined and yet not be Hereticks because the formality of the Heretick hath it self in the will and wilful blindnesse is more apt to make Hereticks then a sober disquisition which would know what it doth beleeve For Beleef is not divided against Knowledge but Science Whereas you say afterwards in your Reply that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and Manners and the Church the ground of our beleef neverthelesse I answer I am very glad you confesse that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and Manners But this confession will destroy your Position that the Church is the ground of our beleef in your sense For if that be our Rule Ruling then our beleef is to be ruled by that For as Clemens Alexandrinus in the 7. of his Stromata saith in this matter That Principle which needs another Principle is not a Principle so that Rule which needs another Rule how is it a Rule Is it an adaequate Rule or not If so then where are your Traditions If not how a Rule of Faith and Manners Is it sufficient or not If sufficient then what necessity of your Proposal of the Church especially for things necessary which are plain If not sufficient then how a Rule of Faith and Manners And if both the Scripture and the Church be both Grounds of beleef then either coordinate or subordinate Not coordinate for then the voyce of the Church must be equal to the VVord of God without the VVord of God and who then will be guilty of the phanatical Spirit If subordinate then the principal ground makes the rest of Faith And when I know Gods Revelation in Scripture what need I goe to the Church for authority or Interpretation And besides where there is need of Interpretation although it doth belong to the Church to interpret yet cannot we ground a beleef in that interpretation unlesse it did appear that the Church doth interpret infallibly But this is not yet proved therfore your reason is not valid And if you say the Church cannot erre because it goeth by the expositions of the antient Fathers do but consider how hardly we can settle and fixe belief therein For who hath read them all yea how few know them all and who knowes whether he that doth know them and hath read them all doth give us a right account of them who can exactly distinguish betwixt those which are true and those which are false who can accurately discern of the true Fathers which pieces are true which are foisted in who can perfectly judge all their idioms of speech who can reconcile the differences betwixt one and another yea who can compose the differences betwixt themselves And that Text which you produce of Saint Peter will do you no good for we do not magnifie private interpretations We say private men should advise with the Church but are we sure that she hath hit the right sense But as for the Text it is impertinently produced if it be rightly interpreted No Prophecy of Scripture is of private Declaration and to this effect the Syriack No Prophetical solution is of private writing was not written by a private spirit for so it best agrees with that which followes in the last verse for Prophecy was not brought to us at any time by the will of Man c. And after the same manner doth Cajetan comment upon the place he toucheth the difference between Sciences written and Prophecies written in this regard that a Learned Man teacheth and writeth according to his own Interpretation those things which do appear in the light of his Agent intellect but the Prophet doth say and write those things which appear under the light of Divine Revelation not according to the interpretation of his own judgment So he So then the Text relates to those who wrote Scripture not to those who should interpret it being written And besides when private Mendo interpret Scripture for themselves they are not to interpret it by private meanes but by it self comparing place with place and discerning the sense of that which is obscure by that which is more plain And if it be a passage that is very obscure and there be no other passage more clear to illustrate it it is not like to be a point without the belief whereof there is no Salvation Well said the Greek Nilus to accuse the Scripture is all one as if one should accuse God but God is without blame It followes in your Reply and all this spoken here and in the position c. of the Church is meant of such a Church as doth truly deserve the name of Catholique Answ This I said enough to at the beginning But you seem to be very loath to own the Church of Rome and to avouch her and yet you would seem to manage the point which they make much of as they as if you had some minde to be a true Catholique abstractedly from Rome and so indeed you may be in the antient sense as they used it for those who were Orthodoxal Yet for what Church you reserve those great titles and what Church in your esteem doth deserve the name of Catholique I know not You are very close in this But let me now at least conclude that if the Catholique Church be not the ground of Faith in your sense surely the Roman is not And now all that I have to do is to justifie two expressions of mine which you are pleased to carp at The one is that I said the Pontificians do hold the proposal of the Church of Rome to be the formal object of their faith You say that you must assure the answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome in its proposal to be the formal object of their Faith as he doth impose upon them for that they acknowledge to be the Revelation of God or the authority of God revealing which causes their Belief to be supernatural or Divine c. Answ I am glad my expression gave you occasion thus to expresse
Infallible Churches Authority to be the ground of Faith I proved the Authority of the Roman Church to be so See this fully answered Numb 27.28 Secondly You say you might still have left me to answer your first Paper with the second Paper I reply that this is onely to stand to what you have said as I also do Let the Reader judge with indifferency Thirdly You say I conclude not contradictorily I reply that I alwayes conclude the Churches Authority to be a sufficient ground of Faith you say it is an insufficient ground Reader judge whether these two be not Contradictions sufficient and insufficient Now to your Eight Answers in Order In your first Answer you spent seven pages to prove the Scripture to be a sufficient ground of Faith This This it is not to conclude contradictorily You should conclude that the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of Faith which still 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 Authority to be Gods Word and also when we evidently know that such and such is the undoubted sense of the Scripture But I have proved at large that we cannot know upon infallible Authority which books be or be not Gods Word but by the Authority of an infallible Church See Numb 11 12. And consequently if the Churches Authority be not a sufficient ground for Faith then we can have no Faith to believe which books be Gods Word which not See Numb 26. The Churches authority is hence proved to be a sufficient ground for Faith and to be our first ground for we must first upon the authority of the Church believe such and such Books to be Gods Word and then assured by this our belief that they be Gods Word we may ground our Faith upon the authority of that Word of God which in this sense I hold to be a most sufficient ground for all Faith extended to all points clearly contained in Scripture This and onely this all your Authorities prove Take for an Example your first Authority of St. Irenaeus out of which you neither do nor can infer any more then that the Scripture once believed to be Gods Word is to us a sufficient ground of Faith because in it self it is The Pillar and Foundation of Truth but by the Authority of Saint Paul which is a stronger Authority then that of Saint Irenaeus The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth Therefore her Authority is a sufficient ground of Faith even according to this your strong Argument This I shewed Numb 22. Yea Saint Irenaeus expresly teacheth that though there were no Scripture at all yet we should all be bound to believe what we now believe as I have shewed Numb the. 19. And yet then we should have no other Authority then that of the Church Again the Scriptures can then onely ground Faith when they contain the Matter about which we are bound to have Faith but very often they do not contain this Matter as I have shewed Numb 9.10.11 12. and chiefly Numb 15. and 16. These points not being contained in Scripture how can I believe them for the Scripture Lastly the Authority of Scripture onely can ground Faith in those points which are known undoubtedly to be delivered in such clear Texts as a man cannot prudently doubt of the sence but a number of things are to be believed which be not thus set down in Scripture as hath been shewed in the places cited See also Numb 14. In other Cases I never deny the Scripture to be the ground of Faith but I say that as God spoke by the pens of those who writt Scripture so he speaketh by the Tongue of his Church in a General Council and therefore these his words are also to be believed as I fully shewed Numb 21.22 23 24 25 26. The Scripture in the Cases I here specified is a sufficient ground of Faith as your authorities well prove and so is the authority of the Church as I have fully proved in the places cited In your second Answer all you say is that the Church cannot ground our Faith but I have fully shewed the contrary in the places cited In your third Answer you come to answer the Testimonies I brought out of Holy Fathers and Scriptures and this taketh you up unto your 27. Page My Reply is that in this Paper I have made good Authorities and Testimonies sufficiently abundant to convince what I undertook and I have fully refuted the chief things you said against the chief places as may appear fully out of the Numb 17 19 22 23 24 25 26. where at large I have shewed your lesse sincere proceeding about the prime authority of S. Austin whose authority in the precedent Number I shewed not to be single In the fourth Answer you say you take not Canonical Books to be Canonical for the authority of the Church I Reply that if you do not take them to be so on this authority yet the holy Fathers did as I have shewed Numb 12.25 26. And if you believe them to be Canonical onely upon the Light given in them to you to see this verity your ground is far more fallible then the authority of a General Council as I have demonstrated Numb 13. In the fifth Answer you endevour to shew that you ground not your Faith on your own private judgement of discretion but I have shewed fully the contrary Nu. 3 4 7. In the sixt Answer you rejoyce to see me confesse the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and Manners as if I had at any time denyed this Neither doth this Confession destroy my Position that the Church is the Ground of our Belief Can I not ground my Faith upon what St. Peter saith because I can ground it upon that which Saint Paul saith Why is the Scripture the Rule of Faith Because it delivereth to me Gods Written Word But the Church delivereth to me Gods Word written and unwritten I may therefore also rule my self by that The most right Rule of Scripture is often so crookedly applyed that he is blind who seeth not that we need to have better security of Interpretation then our own private discretion of Judgement can afford as I have fully proved Num. 4.14 Of the Infallibility of the Church in Interpreting I have fully proved our Doctrine Numb 21 22 23 24 25 26. In the seventh Answer you taxe me with being loath to own the Roman Church Why I did not speak of the Roman Church I told you here in the beginning it was because you would conclude as there you do The Catholique Church is not the Ground of Faith therefore the Roman is not I have fully shewed the contrary and proved the Catholique Church to be the ground of our Faith and out of superabundance I have shewed this Church to be the Roman Church See Numb 27 28. In the eighth Answer
you charge me in differing from my selfe because before I taught the ground of Believing to be the Authority of the Church and now I say it is the Authority of God Revealing My Reply is exceeding easie The Ground of our Faith is God Revealing and God Revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first Belief when he tells us by his Church such and such Books are Infallibly his Word God Revealing is alwaies the formal object of Faith but sometimes God Revealeth his minde by Scriptures and sometimes by the Church as he did for two Thousand yeares and more before the Scriptures were written The Prophets before they did write did say This saith the Lord to wit this he said by their Mouths So say I This and this saith our Lord by the Mouth of his Church as I have shewed Numb 22. Saint Athanasius to speak and I have shewed Numb 28. The General Councel of Chalcedon to have said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Pope of Rome And thus Gods Revelation cometh to us by the Church She and onely She teacheth us these and these Scriptures to be Gods Word We must first believe her before we can come to have Infallible Ground to believe Scriptures as I have fully shewed After we have believed Scripture we cannot by Scripture onely know the undoubted sense of many necessary places in Scripture as hath been shewed Again all things necessary to be believed be not set down in Scripture as hath also been shewed fully The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her Authority to be our ordinary cause of Faith At the end of these your Answers you would fain seem to have spoken properly in accusing us of Excesse of Faith But your distinction doth no way salve the Impropriety of the Speech for there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects but granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that Sense it is not truly said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing what God saith for believing upon an Infallible Authority all that we believe we cannot believe more then we should if we believe no more things then be grounded upon that Infallible Authority as we do not And consequently we do no more then believe such things as have for their Warrant This faith the Lord. Having now answered your Paper from the beginning to the end I am most willing to take your own close out of Saint Austin Against Reason no sober Man will go against Scriptures no Christian against the Church no Peace-maker adding his other words Tr. 32. in Joan. Let us believe my Brethren so much as a Man loveth the Church just so much he hath of the Holy Ghost SIR I Cannot answer it to God nor to his Church with us if I let you seem to your self or to others of your perswasion that you have the Victory untill you have overcome your Error therefore you will excuse me if I still follow you To your Preface then If the Roman Catholiques have often foretold that by permitting freely to all sorts of people the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother-tongue multitudes of new Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberlesse number and as for the peoples Manners they would grow worse and worse as you say in the beginning then are your Roman Catholiques in this false Prophets because they seem by you to make that the cause of Heresies and bad Manners This is plainly fallacia non causa or the fallacy of accident And secondly it is contrary to that of our Saviour Christ Saint Mark the 12.24 Do you not therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God By our Saviour the knowledge of the Scriptures is not the cause of erring but the not knowing of the Scriptures is the cause of erring You do therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto Salvation as Saint Paul to Timothy 2 Tim. 3.15 And thirdly You confesse in this Paper that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may Ground our Faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered And fourthly How cometh it to passe then that some of those in whom Infallibility as you think is vested have been Hereticks and lewd the former of which indeed you do much deny but is exemplified in Liberius's subscribing against Athanasius as you may see fully proved by our Reinolds against your Hart. And surely was that also an action of bad Manners Therefore if your Church were the true Church yet doth it not you see teach the way of Salvation infallibly and therefore can we not by it infallibly discerne the true Religion from the false Indeed the Catholick Church hath taught the infallible way of Salvation but that was the Scripture as I proved by many Testimonies and this was a teaching the infallible way by consequence because it did teach the Scripture which is the infallible way yet hath it not in particular points taught the infallible way infallibly Neither are we by the Church infallibly resolved that the Scripture is the Word of God although the authority of the true Church be a motive herein yet is it not that wherein ultimately we ground our Faith of the Scriptures as I have shewed Whereas then you say that we cannot have as things stand any other assurance to ground our Faith upon securely namely then the Church you do still but fortiter supponere for we cannot ground our assurance securely upon the Church And secondly Whereas you say that as things stand we have no other assurance c. you do not well consider what you say or I do not understand what you mean for hereby you do intimate that the Church is not the ground of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that which is indeed the ground of our Faith must be so absolutely and universally as farre as is necessary the Church security is but the best of the kinde amongst those which are humane but we must have a Divine indefectible ground for our Divine Faith in which there cannot be falsity Neither thirdly Is the Church the first ground because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God because if we did by it believe the Scripture then we are not first to believe it by the Scripture And if whatsoever credence we do give to it we do give by authority of the Scripture then are we first to believe the Scripture and then that is the first ground Fourthly In that you say you did never deny that when we are by the Infallible authority of the Church assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture c. you say that which concludes against the practice of
ground established the necessarinesse of an Infallible Judge I need go no further till this be made sure I need not have any thing to do with your assumption indeed if I may be so free a presumption Yet lest you should take it amisse or ill if I should say nothing to it by it selfe I shall not let it passe without some notice of it But what you say at first here that if we finde out this Judge we can never remain in any doubt for without all doubt we must stand to the judgement of this Judge what reasons soever our private judgement or discretion may suggest So you this spoyles all and this is an argument against you that which you say is little else then Contradictio in adjecto as they speak If we must submit our judgements to an Infallible Judge pretended whatsoever reasons of Scripture I mean we have to the contrary then there is no such Judge for it is impossible for us in our judgements to assent to that for which we see reasons of Scripture to the contrary Take Reason simply and so in matters of Faith it must quiescere as the School phrase is as a principle because the doctrine of Faith is supernatural in the judgement of Aquinat at the beginning of his Summs but take Reason as an Instrument for the finding out of the sense of Scripture and so what moments we finde in Scripture for any opinion we cannot sink in any determinations on Earth As far as the understanding sees appearance of Truth it doth necessarily leap and run to it and will not leave it for any Authority under Heaven and therefore while the reason of Authority is not so clearly drawn from the Word of God as the reason of his Opinion in his own judgement it cannot give up its assent And if we are by duty to go your way of absolute credence to the dictates of your Judge we must then if he saies Vices are Vertues say so too as your Cardinal Bellarmin determins in his 4. Book de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. And thus you again see whither your blind obedience will lead you even from darknesse to darknesse In the seventh Number you lay to our charge an agreement with all Hereticks that have risen up against the Church because we as all Protestants do hold that the Scripture is the onely Judge by which all doubts and differences and Controversies of Religion are to be determined with Infallible Authority To this Saint Austin answers l. de Trinit cap. 38. We also answer to this charge first as before that Hereticks have urged Authority too and therefore by your argument you must quit your way of the Authority of the Church or else grant us our way of Scripture notwithstanding Secondly doth it follow rationally that because the Hereticks have misapplyed Scripture therefore we should not rightly apply it If the Standard be made use of to ill purpose of measuring stoln commodities therefore shall not other measures be ruled hereby It is accidental to Scripture to be thus abused shall it therefore loose its proper priviledge because as Saint Peter saith some who are unlearned and unsetled wrest Scriptures to their destruction therefore those who are learned and setled may not improve it to their Salvation because Robbers make use of the light of the Sun for actions unrighteous and wicked therefore honest men may not use the Light for their lawful imployments Is this good reasoning You had surely raised your discourse to the height if you had told us that we must not urge Scripture because the Devil did urge it unto our Saviour Christ So one indeed concludes as if the Devil did not apprehend what kinde of argument our Saviour would own and what reject therefore did he not set upon him with Tradition of the Church as is noted Neither did Christ reply upon him with Tradition but with Scripture which is a better Argument that this is to be our Rule which we should be be ordered by Thirdly The Hereticks did not presse that which was true Scripture but either corrupted it as Tertullian observes in his praescriptions or took onely so much as was for their use or perverted the sense of it so that if Scripture doth consist in the sense they did not bring Scripture for their proof but that which is not Scripture Fourthly Why doth Bellarmine and others of your Writers so frequently endevour to uphold their Doctrines by Scripture if because the Hereticks use it we must not Neither do they plead Scripture by the Traditional sense of the Church but by their own Interpretations When Scripture seems to them to speak for them then they produce Scripture but when they are oppressed with clear testimonies against them then little respect is given thereunto Fifthly If Controversies are not to be ended by Scripture which the Hereticks plead then how are they to be ended by the judgement of the Church Yes you will say but how shall Hereticks know if they doubt what or which is the true Church it must be by the Scripture so that our last recourse must be to Scripture Again if Hereticks must be perswaded by the Church then are they led if not by their private judgements yet by private judgements of others For besides that the Church consists of private Men the consent of the whole if they could be certain of it being compared to Scripture in way of contradistinction hath it self by manner of private judgement All the publick power it hath it hath by God and Scripture then here again we must end Again how shall Hereticks know that all Controversies are to be ended by the Church they must know it either by their own judgements of discretion which you deny to us or by the Church What in its own cause or by Scripture so we must resolve our selves in Scripture analytically we must bottome there synthetically we must begin there Sixthly This practice of Hereticks if it hath reason to make us forsake Scripture hath it not reason also to make you retract your expressions of your self as towards Scripture that you do professe all reverence and all credit to be due to Scripture as the Infallible word of God insomuch that you are ready to give your lives in defence of any thing conteined herein Will you stand to your words If you will then must you believe that whatsoever is necessary is declared therein sufficiently For what saith the Scripture by Saint Paul Gal. 1.8 If I or an Angel from Heaven preach to you any other Doctrine besides what you have received let him be Anathema And what then becomes of your unwritten word on behalf whereof you wisely cry up the infallibility of the Church in points of Religion For as for the distinction of your men hereupon that the Text is to be understood of that which is against it not of that which is beside it is invalid for it is in the Text beside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
the Pope to be head of the Universal Church and therefore are they not compared ad idem Thirdly Is it determined in Scripture whether the Pope be Head of the Church or not You say it is for if you say it is not you are all lost Well if it be determined by Scripture then consequently it is determined in Scripture that the King is not and so this your Controversie is one of those which is decided and concluded negatively in or by Scripture So this exception against us doth not thrive Another point of this kind you make in your eleventh Number about the Canon of Scripture your Argument seems to be thus that we should know the Canon is necessary we do not know it by Scripture therefore by the Church Is it not thus you cannot make your matter shorter without any detriment to you And therefore we answer first as at first which you give us the occasion to put you in mind of that if the Church were Infallible Judge of all Canonical books yet would it not follow from hence that it should be Infallible Judge in all points of Faith and Manners which you would fain have as very â—seful for you unlesse caâ—â—ally for we might suppose more assistance to the Church in this particular then in other cases since also when that is made sure that there are the books of Scripture we should look for no other directions for Life and Salvation but this Therefore if you argue that because it is Judge Infallible of Canonical books it is Judge of all matters you do not rightly proceed from a particular You are in that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore you do not conclude in your first Universality Secondly We are not to be assured by Divine Faith that there are Canonical books from the authority of the Church and therefore is not the Church the Infallible Judge herein We must beleeve them to be Canonical by their own Authority otherwise we shall never believe them to be so so that you see we deny the Assumption and we say we may know the Canonical books by Scripture we have no other Divine Authority to know them by They bear witnesse of themselves they carry their own light which we may see them by as we see the Sun by its own light For let me put you to this Dilemma either the Scripture is to be believed for it self or the Church is to be believed for it self If the Scripture be to be believed for it self then have we our cause if the Church be to be believed for it self then must we know this by a Revelation beside Scripture which your Bellarmine disputes against in the beginning of his Controversies and whether that Revelation be not Anabaptistical and more uncertain then the word of God judge you And I pray is it not more fiâ— that the Scripture should be believed in its own cause then the Church but if you say that the Authority of the Church is evidenced by Scripture concerning it then that is to be believed for itself as towards the Church and why not then other parts of it Thirdly If the Church be the Judge Infallible of Canonical books how came Saint Hierome to be repugnant to the Church in the debate about Books Apocryphal as you know and may see by your Bellarmin in his second Book De verbo Dei cap. 9. amongst which Apocryphal books the Maccabees are numbred to be by him accounted such and therefore Saint Jerome did not in his Latin Edition translate them and then let S. Jerom's authority justifie Lâ—ther upon your principles for you account the Maccabees to be as well Canonical as you and we do the Apocalyps That the Scripture is silent of its own Canon and that we cannot prove a book to be infallibly Canonical by it self without begging the question hath litle of iudiciousness in it for how do we see light how do we prove first and indemonstrable principles how do we prove that which we apprehend by natural light after this manner is the understanding irradiated to see the authority of Scripture in it and by it well and how do we prove the Church to be infallible by it without begging the question therefore you must come about to Scripture And again if you prove the Church to be infallible Judge herein because the Scripture is not you beg the question who are to dispute not I who am to answer Your twelfth number goes upon a false supposition at least in part of it namely that we are bound to believe that the Gospel of Saint Matthew was written by him as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark We deny it We are bound indeed to believe that the Gospel of St. Matthew and St. Mark as we distinguish them are the word of God but we are not bound to believe that they were written by them It is no part or duty of my faith to believe the Penman of any part of Scripture save onely so far as it is declared in the body of Scripture for it is not Scripture because Saint Matthew wrote it but Saint Matthew wrote it as being inspired that it was the word of God in the matter of it If then your discourse goes upon the matter of it it was answered before if upon the title it is not allowed to be de fide or any point of faith that such was writer of any piece of Scripture And whereas you urge that some have denied this Gospel and some or other have denied other books to be Canonical how then shall we end this Controversie or others about the Canon by Scripture I answer And do not Hereticks deny your Church to be infallible will you therefore quit your opinion So then either this argument is not good against us or it is also good against you Secondly If Hereticks reject some books we may be disposed by the authority of the Catholick Church to our faith of them by their own authority And this seems to be as much as Saint Austin would have us to attribute to the Church in this particular as we have his advice in his second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 8. where he says in Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam-plurimum sequatur authoritatem In Canonical Scriptures let him very much follow the authority of the Catholick Churches amonst which surely these are they which merited if you will construe it so to have Apostolick seats and to receive Apostolick Epistles Observe that he saith let him follow the authoritie very much which doth not conclude that we should wholly rely upon it and of the Catholick Churches in the plural not one only Then there are more Catholick Churches in his judgement and such are they which merited to have Apostolick Seas and Epistles then your Church onely is not to be called the Apostolique Sea And whereas afterward in this Church he doth reckon Apocryphall Books yet is
first that of the Scripture or that of the Church here the Church is opposite to Scripture if it pretend to be first for both cannot be first Therefore the first Axiom in Divinity and consequently of Divine Faith must be that the Scripture is the Word of God and then this Scripture is substracted as the ground of all particulars to be necessaririly believed and therefore if we should have no other Faith of Scripture then by the credibility of the Church for ought is yet proved we should have no Divine Faith In your 14. Number you go about to prove that the Scripture is not the appointed Judge in all Controversies For many things you say are so set down in Scripture that almost all the Controversies which are in the Church doe arise about the true interpretation of the Scripture We Answer First here we see that you would have more to be the question then that Whether the Church be the judge of the Books Canonical and that the Scripture is the VVord of God Therefore we follow you and do say Secondly That it seems then the Question is onely who should be the infallible Judge to discusse and decide the debates which do arise about the sense of Scripture So then again those things which are plainly set down in Scripture as the many necessary things are are allowed to be believed without the voice of the Church and therefore all points of Faith you cannot it seems include within the compass of necessary submission to the Church therein Thirdly your discourse proceeds not effectually to your conclusion unlesse you can prove that the uncertainty of the sense of some passages in Scripture doth convince the necessity of an infallible Judge herein Secondly That we are infallibly certain thereof And Thirdly That the Church of Rome is it These particulars are yet depending and without their affirmation we may affirm that God hath well enough provided for the salvation of men in the Scripture which is more easie to be understood then the universal consent of all the Fathers whose Opinions also must be held true as they are agreeable to the Rule And also hath he provided wisely for us in that he hath not left us to the Lesbian Rule of humane authority and also hath provided for the peace of the Church in that he hath given us direction of the Pastours whom although we cannot absolutely believe yet doe not impudently oppose Yet you will say if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge infallible you mean otherwise you doe not contradict me in all controversies he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly this importing so exceedingly as it doth and yet he hath not done so We answer Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures in that he saith ye erre not knowing the Scriptures as before In that he said by Saint Paul that all Scripture is given by Inspiration and is profitable c. and that it is able to make the man of God wise unto salvation as before And by Saint Peter 2. Ep. 1. cap. 19. we have a more sure word of Prophesie to which you do well giving heed as to a Light that shineth in a dark place untill the Day dawn and the Day-star arise in your hearts And as for Pastours of the Church again and again we say we deny them not a lawful use or to them a lawful respect in things of God but they doe but carry the Lantern in the dark So that by this Light of Scripture are we directed unto salvation Secondly We turn the mouth of your Argument against you if Christ had intended that the Church should have been the infallible Judge it importing so exceedingly he would have told us so clearly and infallibly which he hath not done He telleth us all Scripture is given by inspiration and this Proposition if we rightly believe we believe upon its own authority because it was given by inspiration but it is not as clearly said that the Church judgeth by inspiration And if it doth why doth it not determine all Controversies in the Church and therefore is it either wanting in ability or peccant in duty Or if there may be Controversies in your Church without definition of the Church why may not there be Controversies amongst us without actual decision of Scripture And now Sirs let me have leave to speak affectionately to you do you not see what dis-respects of Scripture if not Blasphemies your Opinion doth miserably betray you to if you follow it Would any sober man let fall such words as if God had intended the Scripture for our Judge such a book as the Scripture is So you VVhy which often times speaks so prophetically that most would think he speaks of the time present when he speaks of the time to come So you First how are these words put together so Prophetically that c. would it seem to be more Propheticall to speak under the formality of futurition but if it be Prophetical to speak of that which is to come as in verbis de praesens then what can you blame in that part of Scripture which is Prophetical Or do you think that it was not meet that in the Old Testament there should be somewhat Prophetical Or will you think that God made that part of Scripture on purpose obscure that there might be need of your Infallible Judge Secondly The Prophecies are not expressed in the Present Tense which in proper the Jewes have not but in the time past to signifie the certainty of their accomplishment and also because as with God they are already done since he looks upon all differences of time with one single act of intuition and as for those Prophecies which respect Christ they are so expressed that thereby may be signified that the merit of Christ did extend to some even before the times wherein those particular promises were made and therefore the manner of Prophetical expressions is upon good reason easily discerned if not by the people yet by the Ministers of the Church without an Infallible Judge And what then if it speaks of Christ under the Type of David when not onely the Letter signifies a thing but the thing another thing and one person represents another Is not this for the excellency of Scripture without such obscurity when we believe David was a Prophet and â—hose which spoke of him were Prophets and when we are in Scripture directed to such an use of Types And if any thing be spoken obscurely yet if it be a matter necessary there are other Texts more easie to compare it with and to expound it by as your Aquinas in his first Page 1. q. 9 10. Articles And therefore this exception is not able to argue the necessity of your Infallible Judge no more then diversity as you say of senses of Scripture wherein it is to be understood
must prove that they were and ought to be infallibly determined by the Church upon necessity of salvation because you would conclude your postulate of the necessity of an infallible Judge Now then if those things were not infallibly determined the instances thereof are of no use to you And you may consider that we may in things of practice which in their nature are of free Observation as being neither commanded or forbidden by the Scripture and should follow the Church therefore to bring it to an issue Either this Poedobaptisme was Infallibly followed by the Church or not if infallibly it was so by the moments of Paedobaptisme in Scripture although not perspicuous If not infallibly yet might they follow the Church and should in this Case because if it had been free to them to have done so or not in regard of the thing yet should they have gone in the way of the Church when there was nothing to the contrary much more should they conform in this which had that reason in the Analogy of Scripture and therefore this Testimony of the Father need not move us wheresoever we find it for I cannot find it by your direction Give me some better direction to find the following of the Tradition of the Church to be the most true and inviolable Rule of Truth reduplicatively namely upon its own account and in things necessary then I shall say more or yield He holdeth therefore you say the Tradition of the Church so infallible that it may be a ground of Faith Here are two things to be said First that he holdeth so of Tradition which by other Testimonies is to be proved Since Secondly he doth not hold it therefore of Tradition since these words of Saint Austin doe not draw after them the nature of Tradition in your sence which doth not depend upon the written Word as this doth for the reason of it And you believe Saint Paul taught him so in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2.15 Hold the Traditions which you have been taught whether by word or by our Epistle To this we answer premising the state of the Question whether Doctrine of Faith not depending upon the word written do oblige Faith equally to Scripture Now we say that these Traditions might respect Order and Ceremony or History and so comes not within compass of the Question in regard of the matter Secondly Though it will not please Estius upon the place yet nothing hinders but that it might be meant of the same matter which was first preached then written and then should hold it or them as first preached then written and this is a second answer in the place doth come into our question in respect of the matter for the Syriack renders it Mandats Commandements which do not signifie formally matters of Faith Thirdly The Thessalonians might be sure that what they had from him by word was such as they should believe equally to what was written but so cannot we be of your Doctrines of Faith which you say are handed from Generation to Generation Make us as sure of them in regard of Divine Inspiration and communication to us then urge our Obedience equal And this will give you an account of Saint Chrysostome upon the place who meaneth no otherwise then that which they had from God by him whether in word or writing they should hold which they could beleeve we can not for such Traditions having nâ—t that certainty of them Read the whole of him upon that Text and also do not passe by the Observation of this modesty herein we may think it worthy of beleef namely the Tradition of the Church which whether he means it of things of Discipline and order wherein we deny not conformity to the Church we are not sure of but there come not up to our Question for they are not of Faith and do not equally oblige And hitherto now you have gone about to assure Christians of a necessity of an infallible Judge now in your 17. Paragr you will assume that the Catholique Church is the Judge Then the Roman to be the Catholique prudently The text you name for the Catholick Church is that of Saint Matthew in his 16 Chap. the 18 Verse I say unto thee thou art Peter that is to S. Peter by name thou art Peter that is thou art a rock and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it c. And now surely you are at your strong hold which you think cannot be undermined or stormed true if your application of it were as sure as it But we are not careful to answer you in this assault First we deny your interpretation of the name of Peter you interpret the Greek that is a rock it is denied the Greek word doth not ordinarily and not here signifie a rock And if you will not believe me take this argument Cephas signifieth a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Petrus signifieth as Cephas therefore a stone Both propositions you have proved as you may see in S. John 1.42 43. as in the Syriack Thou shalt be called Cephas that is a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Greek which is interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stone And because Cephas is known in Siriack to signifie a stone therefore the Syriack doth not add these words which is interpreted and that Petrus signifieth as Cephas you have there for Cephas is interpreted by Petrus therefore your interpretation is not right Secondly If you say as you did before that the Hebrew was the Original of Saint Matthew's Gospel then are you not nearly obliged to the Syriack which is but a dialect thereof nay likely the very Dialect of Hebrew wherein it was first written if not in Greek and then not onely can you not interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rock but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither and then you cannot render the following words as you do And upon this Rock c. For the words in the Syriack are letter for letter the same both the name of the Apostles and the word which you render a Rock are the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both and therefore if you will stand to the Syriack it will come to this Thou art a stone and upon this stone will I build my Church And this will have fair Correspondence with that of Saint Paul in the same Metaphor Ephes 2.20 Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone So that the priviledge of Saint Peter here was onely this to lay as it were the first stone in this Foundation Nay thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament more then once signifieth a stone Rom. 9. last it is synonymically joyned there with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned also to the same Metaphor in that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this must signifie a
if one be sufficient why the other if both be necessarie then either is not sufficient So then if the Scripture be the most sufficient ground of Faith when it be known to be the Word of God and the sense of it then I have contradicted you and you have contradicted your self For I say as you say that it is most true that the Scripture is the most sufficient ground of Faith And two sufficients there are not in the same kind Yes you say but first the Scripture must be known by infallible authoritie to be the Word of God Well but we both beleeve that the Scripture is the Word of God and by infallible authoritie we do beleive the Scripture to be the Word of God because we do believe it by the authoritie of it self which you say is infallible And if you believe it by infallible authoritie of the Church as you think you must go to Scripture for this authoritie then is not the Church a sufficient ground because it needs the Scripture to prove the Church and confirm its authoritie And therefore my concluding was contradictorie since your supposition of two sufficient grounds is false Well and how shall we know evidentlie whether this is the sense of Scripture By the authoritie of the Church you say And why then do they not by their authoritie evidentlie deliver unto us the sense of Scripture in everie difficultie If it cannot it is insufficient if it will not it is uncharitable and besides you fall into the same danger again For where hath it this authoritie by the Scripture then the Scripture is the sufficient ground again and this not And when the Church in a Council doth decide a controversie best it doth so by principles of Scripture applying them to particular cases and the determinations of the Church have themselves to the Scripture but as conclusions and the Scripture hath it self to those conclusions as the principle And therefore properlie the principles are believed and the conclusions are credible not by themselves but by participation from the Principles So that as the prime Principles are the ground of all Science so are the Principles of Scripture the ground of all Faith And the first Principle in Theologie must be this that the Scripture is the Word of God and so the ground of Faith And if the Church be not subordinate it is opposite to Scripture as the first Principle and so stands by it self and must fall to the ground And if you say it is not necessarie to umpire all doubts then you say as we say and why then an infallible Judge And forasmuch as we doe believe the Scripture to be the Word of God why do you contend because we do not believe it as you believe it but if you intend your Treatise in charitie you might have spared your labour For we are in a surer condition then you can be upon your Principles You believe the Scripture by the authoritie of the Church and we believe it by that by which the Church hath its authoritie So that the Scripture is not onely the first ground in regard of Order but also of Causalitie because the Church hath no ground but by Scripture Therefore we like your intention better then your judgement Neither do we denie the moment of the authoritie of the Catholick Church towards Faith so that we have all the authoritie of Heaven and Earth for our belief And if there were a doubt and in us a possibilitie of errour by apprehension that we cannot be assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God by the Church yet our errour would not be so dangerous because we should erre in honour of Scripture as yours is or would be who erre in honour of the Church Also must I observe your ingenuitie again here that you do profess it as most true that the Scripture is the most sufficient ground of Faith when we know by infallible authoritie that it is the Word of God and that such and such is the sense thereof If there be degrees of Truth and sufficiencie then are we more secure if degrees of Truth and sufficiencie to us then are we yet more right And also this doth deduct from your universalitie of faith in your first paper by the proposal of the Church in all things For my second third and fourth and fifth answer the Paragraphs of your Discourse or Treatise have in them nothing whith hath any potential contrarietie to them which I have not fully as I think taken away In your Application you make to or against my sixth answer you seem to take another argument to perswade me that the Scripture and the Church may both be grounds of Faith It is by way of interrogation Can I not say you ground my Faith upon what Saint Peter saith because I can ground it upon that which Saint Paul saith We answer your question is out of question but your consequence from thence is unsolid and unjudicious because they were both inspired in their Doctrine but it is yet again in question whether the Church be infalliblie inspired and we can be infalliblie assured thereof the reason being not the same your reasoning sinks Yet you insist further Why is the Scripture the rule of Faith Because it delivereth to me Gods written VVord but the Church delivereth to me Gods VVord written and unwritten I may therefore rule my self by that So you I answer This argument hath no strength to weaken that which I laid down before that there are not two sufficicient grounds of Faith because the Church is but a Ministerial rule and subordinate to Scripture and so subordinately a rule as to that VVord of God which is written and therefore can it not ground or order my Faith by its own Vertue but onely by proportion to Scripture and so is not a rule equal to Scripture intensively And if you conceive your argument should have any force because the Church doth exceed the Scripture extensively in that it delivereth the VVord written and unwritten Surely you are much mistaken by your supposition that there is a VVord of God not written in points of Faith equally credible to that which is written It is to be proved not supposed Your reasoning rather hath force against your self The Church is not a rule infallible because it delivereth to us a VVord of God not written for herein it mainly erres The Scripture is not onely a necessarie rule but also sufficient most sufficient And therefore they bring in tradition by way of supplement you say it is a sufficient rule in that you say it is a sufficicient ground of Faith therefore must you expunge tradition This rule of Scripture you say is often so crookedly applied that we had need of better securitie of interpretation then our own judgement of discretion So you First this is accidental to the rule and therefore it doth not infringe its prerogative Secondly by this Argument if you drive it to
contradict that Thirdly you say I confesse 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 Yes but I also say that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in Scripture And Saint Peter saith That many to their perdition did misunderstand some hard places of Saint Paul So that misinterpretation of hard places may be the cause of perdition Fourthly you object Heresie and lewd life to some in whom you say we invested infallibity If I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other wayes to Heresie and bad life besides giving all scope to interpret the Scriptures as we judge fit So there be other wayes to Hell besides Drunkennesse but what doth this hinder drunkennesse from being the high way to Hell Again had not David who was a murderer and adulterer had not Salomon who was an Idolater the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing several parts of the Holy Scripture But to prevent this and all that else where you doe or can say against the Pope I in my 21. Number desired you and all to take notice of that which here you quite forget I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Council cannot erre How then doth the belief or faith of our Church I speak not of private mens private opinions invest infallibility in a person heretical or lewd Those Doctors who are of that opinion that the Pope can not erre in defining out of a general Council have other Answers to your Objection But that which you say is nothing against our faith which no man though never so little a Frenchman will say obligeth us to hold the Pope infallible in defining out of a general Council So much for this Whereas I said that we cannot have as things stand any other assurance to ground our faith upon then the Church you tell me I suppose the question Sir I did not suppose but onely propose what presently I meant to prove And where as you say that I do not well consider what I say when I say that as things stand we have no other assurance I answer That though God might have ordained otherwise yet as things stand the Church is the ground of our faith in all points speaking of the last ground on which we must stand not a Humane but a Divine ground The pillar and ground of Truth and it is the first because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God as I shall shew Numb 20. chapter 3. Neither doe we first believe the Church for the Scripture as I shall shew chapter 3. Numb 31.32 though against those who have first admitted the Scriptures for Gods Word we do prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church That I have said nothing against the practice of our Church appeareth by what I said just now shewing how the people deprave the hard places of Scripture to their own perdition 5. You charge me with abating from my first Proposition in which I said Divine Faith in all things was caused by the proposal of the Church because now I say that when by the infallible authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture Good Sir Do you not see that if I be asked why I believe in this case such a thing my first answer will be because God hath said it in the Scripture but if I be pressed further and why do you believe the Scripture to be Gods undoubted Word my last answer must be for the infallible authoritie of the Church by which God teacheth this Verity Surely the main question that serveth for the knowledge of the ground work of all our faith is to examin upon what authoritie at last all our faith doth rely when all comes to all Take then the belief of what particular points you please and examine upon what authority it cometh at last to rely and you shall ever find it to be the authoritie of God revealing by the Church 6. Now whether my adversary be indeed as he saith one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England or whether he hath shewed that Treatise of mine to be no Demonstration Let the indifferent Reader after due pondering the force of all Arguments determin Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you adde The Scripture is infallible but the Church is not therefore I must take for the ground of my Faith the Scripture For first The Scripture cannot be proved to be Gods Word without the Church be infallible as I shall shew chap. 3. Numb 20. Hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infallibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie Article of our faith That all the Scripture is the Word of God and therefore though upon her authority I believe Scripture to be most infallible yet because I ground this belief on her authoritie her authoritie is the last ground of Faith 7. And whereas in your next Number you promise such souls as have forsaken an infallible Church a happy eternitie upon this ground that those things which are necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture I pray God their souls come not to be required at your hands For this ground is most groundless in two respects First because no soul can have infallible assurance of the Scriptures being the true Word of God if the Church be not infallible and you refusing to stand on this ground make the last ground of all your faith to be I know not what kind of Light Visible to certain eyes such as yours are discovering unto them infallibly that such and such books be the infallible Word of God The vanity of which Opinion I shall shew chap. 1. Numb 20.21 22 23 24 25 26 27. Secondly It is most manifestly false That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture as I shew chapter 3. 8. In your next Paragraph I find nothing which I have not here answered onely you still force me to say I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Council cannot erre What proceeds from this authority we profess to proceed from the authoritie of the Church VVhen the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent 9. As for your complaint that your paper is not fully answered I suppose that if any thing of importance was left unanswered you will tell me of it here that I may here answer it Concerning my manner in answering of you I must tell you that St. Thomas and the chief School Divines for clarity and brevity use to proceed thus Having first
the Church We should make no doubt to perform what he should say Lest we should seem not so much to gain say him as to gainsay Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witness to his Church And a little after Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony commands the Church I alledge these words for their convincing reason and not for the authority of Saint Austin with whom you are so little satisfied 17. Of my 6. Number But now I must satisfie such questions as you are still interposing against what I said I said then that being Scriptures cānot be shew'd for the decision of all necessary Controversies we must see further what Judge God hath appointed us to follow in the decision of them appointed us with an Obligation to submit to him because we gainsaying him should seem not so much to gainsay him as to gainsay Christ by whom this Judge was appointed to be heard by us just as Saint Austin discoursed now But this our Discourse pleaseth not you You say This spoyls all contradicts all Because you suppose that such a Judge may contradict Scripture Very likely A Judge given by God with a Commission to direct all to salvation and to that end assisted by his Spirit never departing from his mouth but abiding with him for ever to teach him all truth that he should contradict the truth it self Is not this called contradiction to say that God can testifie of such an one that he shall alwayes teach truth the Spirit of truth never departing from his mouth and yet to say that he shall contradict Scriptures Vain therefore is your fear that there should be solid reasons grounded in Scripture against the doctrine of such a Judge who himself is the pillar and ground of truth and whose tongue is directed by the same Spirit who directed the Pens of those who writ the Scripture 18. This Spirit of truth did not direct that pen which in your paper did write that foul calumny which you utter in these words We must then if he the Pope saith Vices are Vertues say so too as your Bellarmine determins in his fourth Book De Romano Pontifice C. 5. Good Sir read this place again and see if you can hold blushing If I should discourse thus with a child and say know dear child that in no possible case it is lawful to call Vice Vertue And this child should childishly say Sir How if God the Father should say such a thing is a Vertue and Christ should preach that such a thing were a Vice were not I bound in this case to say that such a Vertue is a Vice Dear child would I say this cannot happen But if the child should still more childishly press me Sir But what if this should happen then I must say so must I not Yes child when that shall grow to be possible which is wholly impossible Then say Vices are Vertues Would not this child be the veriest child that ever escaped the name of a fool if he should say that I taught a case to be possible in which Vices might be called Vertues Bellarmin saith in plain words It is impossible the Pope should erre especially with a Council commanding any Vice And when he had proved this by other arguments he addeth also this proof That if he could command any Vice he then should necessarily erre against faith which before he had proved he could not do seeing that Faith teacheth all Vertue to be good all Vice to be bad Then to those who will childishly know what the people must do when the Pope who with a Council at least cannot erre against faith should erre against Faith he answereth that when this impossible thing happeneth the Church should be bound to believe Vices to be good and Vertues evil unlesse she would sin against her conscience Even so Sir when Christ or Saint Paul shall be found teaching that to be Vice which God had before in the old Scripture revealed to be Vertue you shall be bound to hold it a Vertue because God hath revealed it in the old Scripture and also that it is Vice because Christ truth it self taught it so in the New Testament But you shall not be bound to this untill that happen which cannot happen And so said Bellarmine of the other Case God forgive these wilful or exceeding carelesse slanders 19. Let us at last go on to see who must be our Judge in all Controversies All Protestants do say as I noted that the Scripture and only the Scripture is left us by Christ our Judge to end all Controversies And in this their Tenet they agree with all Hereticks who have risen up against the Church of Christ Here you fall upon me as if I spoke against the use of Scripture in Controversies But Sir it is one thing to use Scripture for the proof of some points and another thing to say Scripture and only Scripture must be the Judge for all Controversies To what end then is all you say against me as against one misliking the use of Scripture The force of my argument in effect is this All Offenders against the Law will never be so much their own condemners as to choose on their own accord a Judge by whom they know they shall clearly be condemned Therefore when we see all Offendors against Gods Law in point of Heresie choose on their own accord to be judged by Scripture it is a manifest sign that they know they shall never be condemned clearly by Scripture whom they took for their Judge because before they broached their errors they knew all that this Judge would say against them And they knew also by what glosses and interpretations they could escape the being clearly condemned by any thing which their Judge could say Is not this true And is it not also true that you give so ample scope to these kind of glosses and interpretations that if you in particular be perswaded that whole General Councils one after another have interpreted such Texts in a false sense you may firmly believe your own particular interpretation I think it would pose you to find any Hereticks living before these dayes who were so presumtious as to uphold any opinion which they held condemned before in a lawful general Councel No Catholick I am sure did ever do it 20. Now by reason our Adversaries are still detracting from us as if we detracted from Scripture because we hold that God did not intend by it alone otherwise then by sending us to the Church to decide all Controversies I did shew that we onely did truly believe Scripture For he onely truly believeth a thing with Divine faith who groundeth his assent upon Divine Revelation Our Adversaries doe not doe this We onely doe it I will shew both these things to be true though I be forced to be somewhat large for I can no where more
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
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
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
which collectively taken maketh your other ground of Christian belief to stand upon therefore Saint Pauls words were spoken of the Church as of such a pillar of truth and such a ground of truth as might then be securely relied upon in all matters of faith and confessedly as then the true believers had not the Scriptures sufficiently compleated to be their adaequate Rule of Faith Now after the writings of these Scripture recommending the Church as the pillar and ground of Truth this ground was so far from growing weaker that the confirmation of Scripture added new force to it I have now shewed you the Text in which without any subordination to Scripture as then not written the Church was by Saint Paul called the pillar and ground of Truth Now shew me your Text in which there must be a subordination and such a subordination as may make the Church not to be truly such a pillar and such a ground of Truth as all men may not now rely on it any longer as they did before all Scripture was written I call for your Text not for your reason against which other Reasons will soon be found And as for that saying of Saint Irenaus the Scripture is the pillar and ground of Truth it hath not upon his saying greater authority then the terming of the Church the pillar and ground of truth hath upon the authority of St. Paul My proofe as grounded on S. Paul is stronger then yours as grounded on St. Irenaeus yet I make not St. Irenaeus contrary to St. Paul what he saith of the Scripture I yeild for true yeild me what St. Paul saith that I may ground my faith upon the Church This I cannot do unless God speaketh by his Church If God speaketh by his Church I pray believe what he speaketh He telleth me by his Church that I am to admitt of the Scriptures as his undoubted word upon this his telling me so I ground that faith by which I believe the Scriptures so that I believe the Scriptures for the Church which faith of mine is as surely grounded as was the faith of the true believers who at that very time in which St. Paul did write these words did ground their faith in all points upon the Church as you cannot deny And thus in repect of us the Church is first believed independently of Scripture to which we are most prudently moved by such motives as I have specified and the Scripture in order to us cometh to be acknowledged as Gods word upon the authority of the Church there being no other assured stay speaking of the whole and undoubted Canon to know the true Scripture from false The Scripture is not the first Principle but upon supposition that every one among christians admit of it for Gods Word and so we argue out of it against one another But speaking of him who is to begin to be a christian as where all once began he cannot admit of Scripture as men admit of the first Principles of Sciences which of themselves appear so clearly true that all you can bring to prove their truth will appear lesse true then those Principles appear by themselves The Scripture is not the first Principle in this sense appearing evidently by its own light to be Gods Word as I have shewed at large And this answereth all you say until you come to make good your new interpretation of St. Pauls words an interpretation unheard of to all antiquity and to all men until this age Necessity now forced men to their shifts to put off Scripture when it made against them These words must now be necessarily referred to that which is said in the verse following concerning the mystery of the Incarnation and so though St. Paul did write this Epistle in Greek he must needs be said to have used here an Ebraisme And why must he needs be said to have done so here in this particular place because somtimes such Ebraisms be used in the new Testament Whether this reason wil justifie so new an interpretation of words even for a thousand and five hundered yeares applied to the Church never applied to the Mistery of the Incarnation shall be determined even by the Principles of one of your greatest Divines now living I mean Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Discourse of the Liberty of prophecying Sect. 4. An other great pretence for justifying new interpretations is the conference of places which you would use here by conferring this place to some few places in which such Ebraismes be used in Greek A thing of such indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sence alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine writers there is nothing which may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may amuse the most intelligent observours This he proveth by several examples and then he truly saith This is a fallacy a Posse ad esse It is possible a thing sometimes may be so therefore undoubtedly here it is so There be such Ebraismes some where therefore they must needs be here where for a thousand and five hundred yeares no man observed any such thing Most truly saith the same Doctor This is the great way of answering all the Arguments which can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend Sir you who make the Scripture judge of all Controversies should not of all men justifie such liberty of new interpretation as this your proceeding would bring in Or if you doe you will soon see and may already see it that your judge will be made to speak what each party pleaseth And thus will be unable to decide any thing But to proceed The Church truly being before the Canon was written the pillar and ground of truth in it self without any subordinatiō so that the believers looked no further then that God taught them such and such things by the Church I have from the text all I desire to prove that Gods assistance promised to the Church should reach as farre as infallibility Whether this infallibility be equal to that of the Apostles or no maketh not to the purpose so long as it is granted that our faith relying upon her authority doth rely as securely as that which relies upon the Pillar and ground of truth Here you come in with a parenthesis noting me for a French Catholique for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a council Sir you are no Schollar if you know not that all Roman Catholiques allow infallibility to the Pope defining with a council 24 But because I say also that God speaketh by his Church proposing infallibly his truth by her mouth you tell me that I hence may plainly see how the Roman tyranny drawes me necessarily into peril of blasphemy A deepe charge needing a strong proof And yet all your proof is because now there is no need of Scripture since God speakes as infallibly by his Church as
conscience tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum hold that which is certain leave that which is uncertain it is certain that the Scripture is infalible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is infalible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the rule and ground and cause of faith So I in my last But you leave out all notice of my disputing this with you in point of wisdome and cut off your own confession and would have me to make this a Demonstration absolutely in point of truth You do wisely to shuffle it off since you cannot well bear the dint of it in the way of discourse ad hominem And yet also is it necessarily certain that if our grounds be more certain then your's are not because they are contradictorie But you making it to be in my account an absolute Demonstration answer first the Scripture connot be proved to be the word of God without the Church be infalible as I shall shew ch 8. But this was not now the particular question I disputed upon your own concession And therefore this is nothing to my Argument Apply your answers to my proceeding with you upon your account of prudence And then secondly Though it be not a Demonstration that the Scripture is infalible the Church not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture yet it concludes upon advantage for though the Church were infalible in the testimony of the Scripture to be the word of God yet the Scripture were to be the immediate ground of all necessary points Thirdly Neither doth it contradict my assertions that the Church is not the rule and cause of faith though it were infalible in this Testimony for if it were infalible in this yet would it not follow it should be infalible in all as I have told you and you have not answered me yet And then Fourthly The Scripture may appeare to be the word of God though the Church be not infalible as will be shewed in answer to you And therefore all you say upon this hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie Article of our faith that all the Scripture is the word of God and therefore upon her Authority I believe the Scripture to be most infalible yet because I ground this belief upon her Authoritie her Authoritie is yet the last ground of faith I say all this hath no sound discourse and will come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even into nothing upon the two last answers first because if from hence I believe the Scriptures to be the word of God yet am I not therefore ex vi consequentiae bound to hold the Church the last ground of faith in all things for it plainly concludes a dicto secundum quid We can hold that the Generall Councell may be infalible in points necessary though not in all points whatsoever although you must hold infalibilitie in all or none because you say all is delivered by the Church upon her Authority equally without respect to the matter And then secondly upon the last answer which was the fourth we shall cashiere all that is said here for that it will appear that the Scripture is the word of God without the Churches Authoritie for the corroboration of the Title And so there needs not the infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weighty Article of faith that all the Scripture is the word of God â—um 7. And whereas in your next number you promise such souls as have forsaken an infalible Church an happy eternity upon this ground that those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture I pray God their Soules come not to be required at your hands Ans I am beholding to my Adversary for his good wishes that I may not answer for other mens souls But if he takes here forsaken formally and an infalible Church really so not accounted only to be so by him I deny it that we have so forsaken such a Church for neither is it infalible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides they have rather forsaken us and the whole Church in pretending infalibilitie to themselves and Domination over all that will be true Christians No particular Church can be bound to another more than as it doth comply with the Catholick Church now then if any do leave the Catholick as the Roman hath done we cannot join with them wherein they leave the Catholick either in point of faith or discipline If we are to give respect to a particular Church as an actuall part of the whole then where it separates we must follow the whole A turpis est omnis pars universo suo non congruens And yet they first made the actuall Schism when the Popes Bull prohibited communion with us So then take forsaken rightly and an infalible Church really we deny the charge Take them otherwise we denie the consequence of danger But my Adversarie would prove our ground to be groundless first because no Soul can have infalible assurance of the Scriptures being the true word of God if the Church be not infalible c. Whereof you promise more Num. 20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Ans This we have had so often without proof that it is to no purpose to say any thing to words for Arguments Scaurus negat as Alphonsus de Castro opposeth his adversary Yea also you refer me here for proof in the third ch Your conclusion is here your proof there so far is your conclusion from proof Premisses were wont to be before the Conclusion but your opinion is already shewed vaine as touching the ground of your certainty and your vanity of my opinion I shall refute when you shew it And so you serve me for the second respect wherein you say my ground is groundlesse for you say it is manifestly false that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture as you shew ch 3. Your conclusion here that it is manifestly salse c. I believe will be too large for your Arguments as it is now too soon We follow your order as having nothing to do untill you begin In your eighth Par. You say I find nothing in the next Par. which I have not here answered Onely you still force me to say again I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre what proceedeth from this Authority we professe to proceed from the Authority of the Church When the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent You say you find nothing in it which here you have not answered And what can I finde here but that you say Only you force me to say again Here is some ingenuitie that you seem not to love to swell your papers with repetitions Therefore prove it once say it no more Quid
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
down in Scripture For though we have not the formall and materiall number of things distinctly to be believed yet all that is distinctly to be believed may be plainly set down there And therefore if we believe them we believe sufficiently Therefore if he takes the terme distinctly in this sense that we must necessarily know that this is one of the points necessary to be believed we deny it of every point that is necessary although we may say so of some as that Jesus is the Christ because in Scripture salvation is denied any other way as Acts. 4.12 If he takes the term as signifying that some things are actually and explicitly to be believed we grant it but the consequence so is not valid Secondly this returnes upon them and therefore should they not have moved this stone For where have they set down a list of all those things which by every of them are necessary to be believed distinctly in contradistinction to their implicit faith And if they say that they are ready distinctly to believe whatsoever is proposed by the Church so we say that we are also ready to believe whatsoever shall be sufficiently proposed out of Scripture And sure we have as good cause for an implicit faith as to Scripture as they have as to the Church And if Mr. Knot 's judgement be the sense of the Roman Church there is but one fundamentall point of them actually and distinctly to be believed in which are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary to salvation in these words we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholick visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another mind all Catholicks denounce him to be no Catholick So he And therefore why do they urge a particular and Inventory of all points distinctly to be believed when they content themselves with one Generall If the Church must be proved by Scripture as formerly we have shewed and according to St. Austin then one generall comprehensive point might more reasonably be sufficient for us and that is this we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever plainly appeares to be revealed by Almighty God in Scripture But yet we do not content our selves thus for we say all points necessary are distinctly to be believed and they may distinctly be believed because they are plainly delivered more plainly than the Decrees of Councils at least the Trent Council And he that says he is bound to believe all that is contained in Scripture when clearly proposed to him as such by consequent is ready to embrace all points necessary because they are plainly delivered Therefore indeed is our opinion more agreeable to a distinct account of what is to be expressely believed than theirs because we make a distinction in point of credibility by the matter saying that some things are plainly proposed because necessary to be believed though all things are necessary to be believed when plainly proposed The former sort whereof requires absolute belief the latter conditionate to the competent appearance of them to be such as God hath shewed to come from him by revelation He proceeds Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday Every one is bound not to have two Wives at one time Not also to marry within such or such a degree of Consanguinitie Where are all these things plainly set down in Scripture Ans Some things are neither de fide nor de verbo fidei as that the Bishop of Rome is the universall Bishop of the Church Some things are de verbo fidei yet not de fide in propriety of phrase as necessary in the matter as namely historicall truths as that Jesus rode to Jerusalem Some things are de verbo fidei and de fide also as that Jesus is the Christ that whosoever believeth shall be saved The question now betwixt us is of the last kind whether Scripture with sufficient clearnesse sets down all those things which are de fide in this sense So that my Adversary was to prove that these particulars are so necessary to be believed that no man who doth not believe them distinctly can be saved And while he saith so that they are such and doth not prove them we need say no more than that he doth not prove them Asserentis est probare And I am not to answer unto words but Arguments Yet secondly these are sufficiently knowable by Scripture the first by the equity of the fourth Commandement and the intimations thereof in the new Testament The second by God's own institution in state of innocency and by the first Ep. to the Cor. 7.2 But for fornication let every man have his own wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet if they will hold that this is one of the practick credibles in the foresaid necessity they doe endanger the condition of those Jews who had more wives And also they will incurre the danger of being engaged to answer for that Pope who as before gave liberty to take another wife And for the third it is sufficiently declared as to the necessity of knowledge and practice in Levit. 18. And if to the knowledge what is to be done in these we are so strictly obliged by the law of God as that if we misse a degree we are damned it must also be made as clear as whatsoever is necessary that the law of God hath given unto the Pope a faculty and power of dispensing as to Mariages within those degrees If the law of God hath not made these cases of Mariage as plain as is necessary for those who are not so studious to know the utmost of their liberty as to resolve a negative of practice upon any appearance to the contrary then the law of God must as clearly as to exclude doubt shew unto us that infallible directory whereby we may come exactly to the knowledge of what is to be done herein And if this can be made to appear why is it not Num. 5. Other endlesse difficulties be superadded by those other words plainly set down and first to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sense of it I must first know such a book to be the true and undoubted word of God which as I shall shew num 20. cannot be known by Scripture This we have taken away before so far as it concerns the present dispute and we are like to meet with it again it seems and no sober Christian before he had proved an infallible Propounder of every truth to be believed would have raised this scruple But intellectus currit cum praxi as the Romanist said religion must be accommodated for their use To this more upon the place It cannot be known at least by those who can truely swear that they are no more able by the reading of the book of Numbers for example to discover in it any Divine light
said that God wanted ability to set down other points as plainly and there is no repugnance ex natura rei that other points should be as plainly set down as that therefore if God in his wisedom and goodnesse caused by his Spirit that verity to be clearly delivered for our salvation how can we believe that he did not also direct the Pen-men of the Spirit of God to deliver all other points necessary to salvation with necessary plainnesse Again thirdly if the word of the Prophets was a more firme word than the Testimomonies of the Apostles as Estius upon the place as to the Jewes for the faith in the Messiah then where we have that and the writings of the Apostles in the new why should we not account this a more sure word than the word of the Church in this point or any other contained in Scripture Why may not we as likely doubt of the Church specially a particular Church as well as the Jews might doubt of the Apostles And is not the Doctrine of the old and new Testament more sure than the Doctrine of the Church To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this it is because there is no light in them as the Prophet speaks then the Scripture is the rule of their Doctrine and therefore more sure that which gives credit to others must be more credible Yea and untill they prove that something new in substance was added to the new Testament above what was contained in the old that text availes also for Christians against any thing not written Neither can the Romanist say that that word of Prophecy shines in a dark place by the hand of man in the Church for it is spoken of the word as written and the Prophets who then wrote the word were dead If the Prophets had been then living it had been reasonable for the Jews to have taken their direction from their mouth as it might be reasonable for us to take the word of God from the mouth of the Apostles were they now living but the Prophets are dead and the Apostles are dead by whom we know God spake but that God speaks now by the Church as he did by them we are yet to deny untill it be better proved or these texts better answered But we have one more Your sixth and last text is Acts the 17. where it is said of the Beroeans Num. 14. they received the word with all readinesse of mind and searched the Scripture daily whether those things were so Against the proceedings of this Text he brings severall Pleas some common to former Texts as at the latter end of the number these are answered already those that are new we shall here examine And first he calls for one evident clear syllable which saith the Beroeans did search the Scripture before they believed St. Paul Nay is it not first said they received the word with all readinesse of mind Ans First he says that which is to be proved that those words they received the word with all readinesse of mind do inferr rather that they did believe St. Paul before they did search the Scriptures For though St. Paul was infallible in his Doctrine and therefore might be believed and ought yet it doth not appear that they were perswaded of him and therefore it is not said they recieved St. Paul with all readinesse of mind but they received the word and they might receive it with all chearfulnesse as good though they did search it whether true Secondly they might receive it with all readinesse upon appearance of probability although they did not believe it until by search they found it agreeable to the Scriptures Yea somewhat may be received without probability and with all readinesse of mind too as an Adversaries paper And that they did not believe it untill they had compared it with the writings of the Apostles appears more probable by the following words that they did daily search the Scriptures if these things were so their search was an sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If they did believe why did they still search and daily search Doe we search for that which infallibly we believe Then where is certainty which Mr. Knot makes necessary to faith But he himself will ingenuously confesse as much as seems requisite for our cause in these words upon those motives which St. Paul proposed to them before they searched the Scriptures and being by those motives and Instructions well enlightned to understand the Scriptures they for their further comfort and confirmation searched the Scriptures daily to see whether they testified the same point and this one point of our Saviours comming being clearly in Scripture perhaps St. Paul might bid them search in such and such texts for it These words we must take great notice of what motives they were he doth not expresse but such it seems as upon which many thousands did recieve it whose proceedings you can never prove lesse laudable than the Beroeans But this his parenthesis does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He might have left it out better For why then are these Beroeans commended If there was not in them somewhat of excellent ingenuity why are they commended for this that they received the word with all chearfulnesse searching the Scriptures daily Doth not this belong also to their commendation that they searched the Scriptures daily Nay it may be further if we may have leave to be critical their receiving of the word with all chearfulnesse was concurrent with the searching of the Scriptures daily and so the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken per modum medii whereby they came to embrace the word the use of Participles is not it may be infrequent in this sense However it is not comely for him when the Scripture doth give a reputation and honor to these Beroeans to equalize many thousands to them But we must a little more reflect upon his words Motives these Beroeans had proposed by St. Paul before they searched the Scriptures But what motives That is not expressed by St. Paul nor indeed that they had any Well but we give it that they had motives And if the authority of the Church had been one of those motives my Adversary would not have omitted it And yet also we can grant motives before the resolution of faith So that those Beroeans might have motives and yet not believe before the searching of the Scriptures But this how loath is he to come to that they did search the Scriptures as in order to believing Therefore he doth substitute other ends of their searching of the Scriptures namely for their comfort and confirmation What For their comfort and confirmation and not for their faith But if the searhing of the Scriptures be of use to our comfort and confirmation then also to our faith but not to beget it it may be No As in naturalls so in spirituals we may be said to be nourished by
that by which we consist Therefore it is said Rom 10.17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God And if it be said that it comes by the word of God spoken It is answered the word of God spoken is to be measured now by the word of God written unlesse we had as good reason to believe those that now speak in the Church as the Jews had to believe the Prophets or the first Christians the Apostles But secondly if the searching of the Scriptures was of use for the comfort and confirmation of them then this brings more honor upon the Scriptures because this is more to be comforted and confirmed by them for comfort at least respects the application of the Gospell to us and if the searching of the Scripture be of use hereunto as in the way of a particular faith then surely to a generall faith much more Thirdly therefore if he means by comfort particular assurance then he turns Protestant in this opinion if not he will be little differing from faith But fourthly these Beroeans were here commended for searching the Scriptures whether to comfort and confirmation or to faith and therefore surely we cannot be discommended hereafter for allowing the use of the Bible to the people But this he occurrs to Neither hence is it made evident that the old Testament was thrust into every mans hand of the Beroeans but that they deputed their chief Doctors to make this search and that for this point onely namely our Saviours comming which he even now said is clearly in Scripture Well as we have noted we have here the main and denominative point of Christians by his confession clearly in Scripture but the old Testament was not thrust into the hands of every man of the Beroeans no not to search them as to this one point Oh how tender they are here in this matter Si non caste tamen caute But was it put into the hands of any of the Beroeans if so why not into the hands of all If not shall the Beroeans in the text suppose onely for the Doctors and for none of the People But some it may be would have abused the Scripture and would none of the Doctors no will he say not in a clear point but would the Doctors then in a controverted point If so how should we be ruled by them Yea neither the people would have abused the Scriptures in a clear point by his own Argument because they erred therefore it is not plainly set down So then if this point about our Saviors coming be plainly in Scripture as he cannot but acknowledge it seems then the people could not err in it But then again secondly it is not like to be meant of the Doctors because it being a plain point in Scripture there was no need for them to search the Scriptures daily Therefore most certainly it is meant of the people for the Doctors also are not wont to be spoken of in a common notion of the nation Thirdly it is to be understood of these Beroeas in opposition to the Thessalonians as appears by the text these were more noble or more ingenuous than those of Thessalonica now these in Thessalonica were not of the Doctors for it is meant of the Synagogue there as appears by compare of the first verse of the ch and the fifth with the rest And so also those who are spoken of in Beroea were also of the Synagogue of the Jews there as appears by the tenth verse now the Synagogue was not a Congregation of Doctors but of the people with a Master And so it was a rule with the Jew ten make a people and where there is a people there is to be a Synagogue and where a Synagogue there a Master So then this being spoken of them of the Synagogue per so it is most like to be understood de communi of the people And fourthly if it were to be understood of the Doctors I hope the people should have believed them upon their own word without the Doctors searching the Scriptures daily For if the Doctors be not to be believed without their searching of the Scriptures daily then for ought I see we have done and the Controversie betwixt us is at an end because it is to no purpose that their searching of the Scriptures should be a condition of the peoples belief unlesse also the people be allowed to give their belief conditionately to the search and how can this be done by them unlesse they compare what is said by the Doctors with the Scriptures For how shall we believe the Doctors upon their bare word that they have searched the Scriptures so then in effect upon this account the main principle and last resolutive of the peoples faith must be the Doctors meer word and why then should they discourse fallibly and conclude infallibly as Stapleton would have it To conclude then the debate of this text we may have I suppose clearly these two corollaries from it First that it is not onely lawfull but commendable whatsoever the Church says to search the Scriptures whether those things be so for the Church cannot have greater authority upon us than St. Paul no nor so much neither till they prove it better and yet these Beroeans were commended for it And if in a point clearly set down in Scripture as this was by his own acknowledgement then in other points much rather because by his own argument also in such the Doctors may be more mistaken Yea because also according to our principles positive faith in such points is not so necessary to salvation untill we see it plainly proposed Yea also when a point controverted appears plain the disbelief is not damnative by the nature of the verity but because it destroys Gods veracity which is the prime tenure of all truth Secondly we have also this Corollary that faith comes by searching of the Scriptures for so it follows which my Adversary had no mind to take notice of in the very next verse the twelfth many of them therefore believed Therefore namely upon searching of the Scriptures so that they did not believe blindely and then searched the Scriptures but searched the Scriptures first and then rationally upon principles of Scripture believed And these two propositions are sufficient to unhinge the Pope and all his Cardinalls and all their Religion as differing So that now the texts whereunto he would wisely have answered out of due place being vindicated from his batteries and standing against him in their full strength and force we may now after this reinforcement of them make shorter worke having already given him more than he brings And therefore as for his Argument in this Par. Num. 15. That this is not plainly set down in Scripture that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture and therefore not all things is answered by our deniall of the Antecedent and the proof of the contrary For the moment of
Church not of the Church because the testimony thereof is resolved into Scripture of which the question is yea if the testimony of the Church were infallible it must be infallibly proved by the Scripture and also that it is our rule of faith But thus we see the importunity of the Pontifician for their cause if we should say we resolve our faith of the Scriptures into the testimony of the Church they would never ask us a reason of our faith but when we say we resolve it into the internall testimony of the Spirit for our own private assurance they will not let us sit down with that but will demand a proof thereof although the testimony of the Church if it were the formall reason of our faith must be infallibly made good to us by the internall testimony of the Spirit but that which they would have us rest in for the Church we may not rest in for the Scripture And yet also have we other arguments from Scripture it self which have more moment in them unto the belief of Scripture than the meer testimony of the Church as Dr. White notes in the twenty sixth p. of the way to the true Church which is worthy to be perused also upon this account that there are severall testimonies collected even of Papists for the belief of Scripture without dependence upon the Church as of Canisius Bellarmin Biet Gregorie of Valence Stapleton some whereof we have quoted allready So then by my Adversaries own argument if we need not depend upon the Church for belief of Scripture then not for other points of faith The thirtieth Article hath nothing in it considerable but for us first that he saith it to be that most fundamentall Article that such and such books be infallibly God's word So then if it be the most fundamentall article then it is also fundamentall to the Church otherwise it is not that most fundamentall article but the Church must be the most fundamentall article And if it be fundamental to the Church then we resolve our faith in the highest principle and that which is primo primum and the Papists resolve themselves into that which is at best but secundo primum Our faith then being rooted in Scripture we can give a check to their vaunting of the priviledge of the Church as St. Paul did to the Jew but if thou boastest thou dost not bear the root but the root thee so the Church doth not bear the Scripture but the Scripture it And secondly we note in his thirtieth number what he saith Take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane We assume this infallible assistance is not yet proved and till it be proved the authority is but humane and yet doe we not scoff at the authority of the Church as he chargeth us but do make good use of it without infallibility And thirdly we might note that if some other had the answering of these papers he might tell them that they are mendicants of the question for first here they say that they ground this point upon the authority of the Church as being infallible And then again she hath an infallible authority which we account a fansie and yet again this infallibility alone must be that which groundeth not this perswasion but this infallible assent And yet again take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane These things so nearly belonging and essentially to the question are to be proved not supposed yet all must be supposed by them that so they might not seem to run at the ring and hit it as we may speak only the last hath a truth in it but also it supposeth in the drift a supposition for their use But at the last we have an appearance of an argument We have no other infallible ground left us but the authority of the Church assisted by the Holy Ghost since the Scripture hath no where revealed which books be Scripture which not Ans To this we say three things first that the argument is no way cogent because there is no necessity of either if we can be assured by the Holy Ghost that these books be Canonicall And if we cannot how did the Church at first assure it self that they were Canonicall So then Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is Secondly unlesse they prove the authority of the Church better they had better have left this out for otherwise there is no ground of faith unlesse our ground be admitted if this be a true Dis-junctive proposition that either the Scripture must set down which books be Canonicall which not or else the Church in the proposall must be infallible And yet if the Scripture should have set down which books were Canonicall it must be resolved whether that book wherein they were set down was Canonicall by the Holy Ghost also Then thirdly if the disjunctive be not true then his discourse is false if it be true in the proposition then we assume against them that the Scripture hath no where revealed whether the Church is infallible and therefore there is no other way to know it to be infallible but by it selfe So then it must prove the testimony of the H. G. by it self and if it can then may we prove the testimony of the Holy Ghost concerning Scripture by it selfe if not where will they set up In the 31. Num. he would squat Num. 31. and deceive the chase by a distinction which will not stay him from running round in the proving of Scripture by the Church and the Church by Scripture He sayes No Sir you never heard me give this reason unlesse it were when I spake to one who independently of the Church do professe himself to believe the Scripture to be God's word as you do And this is the effect of this Number for his defence and of those Divines who do not deale thus in proving the Church by the Scripture with all those who have not admitted the Scripture as infallible for they first prove the authority of the Church and that independently of the Scripture to be infallible Answ This covering is too short and indeed not sound for I am not bound to take notice how they prove it to others but how they prove it to me If they prove it thus to me then by their owne confession they are included in a circle And they prove it thus to me because I hold the Scripture to be God's word independently of the Church and so he saith of me as you do Secondly whereas he sayes If I be a Scholar I may know that their Divines do not answer so when they are put upon the question Why do you believe the Church I do answer that for my part I never pretended to be a Scholar as they do signanter I have neither head nor heart nor body nor books for the Controversies but yet this I
dissatisfaction though the Judgement within be convinced And 3. Others of his religion are not in this of his perswasion for they will not so lightly give over the determinability of other points by Scripture And yet I commend also his modesty in that he saies not absolutely no controversie but scarse any controversie So that it is not repugnant to a controversie Ex natura rei to be determined by Scripture And then there is no such necessity of a living Judge surely the living Judge is more necessary for the state of Rome than for our salvation Then he takes exceptions at my discourse about the nature of a sacrament He tells me you do not do it as you should have been done to the present purpose to wit by alleadging more clear texts to prove that Christs true body is not really in the Sacrament then I alleadge to prove that it was really in it Ans But first they may thinke that we do understand our selves sufficiently in this case not to be bound to give any texts for the negative And therefore since they affirme they should prove so strongly that nothing can be answered and since they challenge they should make clear work as they goe we sufficiently discharge our parts in the taking away their arguments which concludes to us and might to them the negative and since the signal texts for their cause in this point are answered we have no more to do 2. Such a demand will return upon him I have reason to doubt of his Interpretation of the text of St. Iames lately agitated I say also give me a clearer text against my sense which I make of it namely as relating to the gift of healing Is not this as equall a demand since especially the council could not it seems fetch their sense from tradition 3. If Christ's being really in the Sacrament would satisfie them without determination of the manner this controversie would be at an end for we say as antiently Praesentiam agnoscimus modum nescimus but forsooth they must appoint the manner of presence and yet cannot agree about the manner of conversion of the Element into the body 4. What need of any texts against their sense when the sense imports that which cannot be although the Canonists do flatter the Pope with all kind of power yet one said well of him Papa non potest facere de quadrato rotundum Nay as Aquinas determins handsomely concerning those things which are in question whether God can do it should rather be said that they cannot be done then that God cannot do them So this cannot be For it implies a contradiction yea many as it is noted It implies the body not to be when it is If the body be to be made then it is not for the terme of motion cannot be existent before the motion be accomplished So then it is namely in Heaven and yet must not be because it is to be made on Earth by the Priest And yet fiftly If he would not make an ill use of a courtesie we might gratifie this humor a little and tell him that there is a Text in the 1 Ep. to the Cor. 11.26 which concludes clearly against his sense for it is said you shew the Lords death till he come If it be done in remembrance how is he corporally present And now me thinks then they should be obliged to answer my Texts for my sense against their sense since indeed their sense is non-sence Here he comes over again to make the work more tedious with some passages of the Athanasian Creed N. 60. which he thinks every one is bound explicitly to believe though they think an implicit faith sufficient to them and yet they are not clearly set down in Scripture To this I answered that the matter of them in the generality is found according to equivalence in Scripture although it be not found in terms Only they are desired to consider that this answer was made to the other passages of the Athanasian Creed and not to the consubstantiality of the Son of God for this is more expresly spoken of as I have told them but because he would not be urged to a necessity of answering what I said distinctly about this point he includes it amongst other passages of the Creed it may be upon these accounts that it might seem to be under no more necessity of actual belief than the other and Secondly might lose the use of a proper answer and he might have less to do by answering it in common but we are not ignorant of his devices My answer therefore to the properties of the divine persons in the H. Trinity is yet in full vigour and force that the matter of them is as well found in Scripture though not in termes yet according to equivalence as their transubstantiation To this he saies now To be as clearely set down as Transubstantiation in Scripture is according to your own principles not to be clearly set down at all Ans Again he playes the Sophister in taking that to be spoken ad rem which was spoken ad hominem Therefore cannot be conclude that there is an equall independency of both on Scripture to be inferred from my words They hold transubstantiation so upon Scripture I not But I make use of their distinction as to this point against them for those passages in the Athanasian Creed Neither is it any boot for him to say It is not more satisfactorie if you mean to argue out of our own principles for according to us all points necessary and this point in particular are not clearly set down in Scripture and to prove this I have laboured all the Chap. So then thus we know Ulysses They will make the best proof of their points they can by Scripture but they make a better use of Scriptures by their obscurity that so causes might necessarily fall into the hands of the Romans First then this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have by them that they dare not stand to Scripture for the determination of their points and they may know who those were which were Lucifugae Scripturarum Therefore I hope we shall have leave to make the shorter work by abatement of discourse out of Scripture For when you produce Scripture for your cause we can retort your own confession this point is not clear in Scripture Having then beaten them out of the hold of the Fathers now out of the hold of the Scriptures we may have done enough But secondly to give them a little more chase though they will not make Scripture a Principle yet since they will make it a proof for their auctorament we can say as well as they can prove this point by Scriptures so is the Athanasian Creed as provable by Scripture as to those passages about the properties of the divine persons And now might I name Boucher who in his Mir veilles de Deiu hath the same distinction in the point of transubstantiation
Scripture than for any thing else But then I deny the minor the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility is not worthy of an infallible assent It may be worthy of the highest degree of moral assurance yet not of an iâ—fal ible assent No Authority can write as to Conscience what a king writes as to civil credit teste me ipso but that which is immediatly divine And why then do the Pontificians prove the Authority of the Church by Scripture The Church without Scripture is not yet Christned if we take Scripture for the substance of the matter it will be but the highest form of Heathens And therefore the Scripture is to be believed antecedently to the Church And how little his examples have proved the minor we have seen even as much as he had cause to conclude against me out of my own words thus Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten is of equal Authority to Scripture The Traditions we stand upon be matters of Faith truly once delivered by our Saviour or his Apostles though the Revelation were not written by them therefore this is of equal Authority to Scripture even according to your own words Surely it is easier to answer this than to forbear the Person The proposition was not my words I hope categorically spoken but as being the state of the question if those Traditions be in the matter beside Scripture And now he takes this to be my affirmation simply And then we deny his minor too because that which they stand upon is not matter of Faith as being not revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles or truly delivered by either for they are uncertain by which And if they will urge that Text St. Iohn the 16.22 as Bellarmin does they may think that many things might be written afterwards or were not points of Faith And this Text hereticks have urged and therefore by my Adversaries Logique he should not And did St. Austin think that any could soberly say that the points of difference were of that number Or did any of the Saints in Heaven see what they were in speculo Trinitatis and did send down word thereof As for his defence of the exception which he took against the Scriptures being a sufficient rule to us N. 15. because neither the Apostles nor their Successours took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages as all or the greater part of them could understand my answer is yet good the care was taken in that the new Testament was written in Greek which was a common language then And this I gave an Argument of in that the Grecian is contradistinguished to the Jew in the New Testament And therefore the Greek must be the greatest and most famous part and therefore the language common this proof he is not pleased to meddle with at all Another proof that that was the common Language was that of Tully for Archias the Poet Graeca per totum orbem leguntur This he takes notice of And he saies and so is Virgil in Latin But this doth not contradict me yea he gives me a corroboration of my Argument for whom did Virgil imitate Theocritus in his Eglogues Hesiod in his Georgicks Homer in his Aeneids Yea Horace had read the Greeks it seems by his Grecisms Yea Terence was so conversant in Menander that he was called Menander dimidiatus But he saies This is to be understood thus that the most learned sort of men every where read Greek and Virgil. Ans This supposed is not exclusive to the Greeks being the common Language as to others since he will think the Latin was common to the people then and yet the most learned read Virgil. And did not all those Nations whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles to understand Greek Did he write onely to the most learned In what Language was the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Hebrews for the Roman Church confesseth that this Epistle also was written by St. Paul written were they not both written in Greek yea the Jews that used the Septuagint Translation were many So Philo the Jew and Marcus Antonius the Roman wrote in Greek And therefore that which was spoken by the Oratour was spoken without any such Hyperbole He saies yet further either this must be spoken in way of a notable amplification or Scripture must be denied because even between the two Cities of Antioch and Constantinople the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus Cappadocia Asia minor Phrygia Pamphilia all which Nations the Scripture Act. 2. testifieth to have had different Languages Ans Though the Scripture speaks of them as distinguished in speech yet not in Language but dialect and so it is expressed ver 6.8 And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be restrained as to those who had several dialects therefore whereas he saies the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus c. If he means that the common Dialect of the Greek was not used by them all this is not much to be stood upon because it is not reasonable to say that those who spake several Dialects did not understand the common Greek for take them all Attique Jonique Dorique Aeolique and Baeotique they differ ordinarily but in terminations or pronunciation from the common Within that compass is also Galatia which St. Jerom testifieth to have had a language somwhat like those of Trevers An. It is as farre from Thebes to Athens as from Athens to Thebes is it not Then that of Trevers must be as neer that of greek as that of the Galatians which was greek in St. Pauls time If afterwards the language altered or was corrupted this doth not contradict us because we must distinguish times And therefore yet it remains good that the greek was understood of the greater part of the world and therefore the Apostles took care to have the knowledge of the Gospel to be commonly understood And if they had not God did miraculously by the gift of the Holy Ghost sub forma visibili in the second of the Acts in the gift of tongues And this concludes against their Latin service as also St. Paul discourseth and concludeth against it in the first Ep. Cor. 14. And though we cannot tell the time when the Scripture can first be shewed to have been thus communicated to the people of severall languages what is this to the purpose If it had not been done afterwards it is enough to us that the Apostles did write in the most common language for those times And if it had not been done it should have been done But that it was done appears seasonably in the great Bible Neither can they tell us or will when the vulgar Latin began first to be Authentique whether under Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth In the beginning he tells me that I moved a question how the people should clearly know the true Tradition from the false Ans I did
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
and not private Spirit which I can esteem no better then a fantastical if not a fanatical Opinion and is Diametrically opposite to the words of the second of St. Peter 1.20 No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation And all this spoken here and in the Position c. of the Church is meant of such a Church as does truely deserve the name of Catholick and so it will appear that all the discourse in this paper I received of the Roman Church considered as a Particular Church or any other Particular Church is but Impertinent and Extravagant Now also I must assure the Answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome the formal Object of their Faith as he doth impose upon them for they acknowledge that to be the Revelation of God or the authority of God revealing which causes their Belief to the Supernatural and Divine and not onely Natural and Humane as is the Belief that there is such a City as Rome or that there is a William the Conquerour c. which kind of faith is All that Hereticks have and All such as do not ground their Belief upon the Authority of the Church I cannot also but observe in the received paper that it is improperly enough called Excess of faith as it is there opposed to want of faith to believe more then Necessary for the Number of things believed does not alter the Nature of faith it self And lastly I must tax him of false alledging the words in the Reason thus there is no infallible way without a Miracle of his Gods Revelation coming to us but by their Church whereas in the Paper delivered it is the Church abstracting from all Particular Churches and meaning the true Church which soever it is And this is done but to make way for that needless Excursion which there follows THE REJOYNDER SIR THere is no great reason for me to rejoyn First because you wave the Application of your Discourse as to the Roman Church which is not ordinary for those of your Profession when they speak highly of the Catholique Church Secondly Because I may let you alone to answer the first paper with your second as to the main of it Thirdly Because the greatest part of it hath one fault not to conclude contradictorily Yet in Christian respects to Truth and You I shall endeavour meekly some return to your Reply and to differ as little as may be from you I shall mostly follow your own Order In the beginning you dislike my dislike of the ground of Faith without giving you any Reason Answer I intended my answer as near as I could guesse to the design of your paper for the Roman Church by Obedience to the Bishop whereof Bellarmine in his Catechism Englished p. 65. 6 7. doth describe the Catholique Church You will excuse me then if I took the course to make my answer compendiously sufficient to that drift if you will hold with Papists herein And if you would confesse you meant the Roman Church by the Catholique then I have given you such a Reason against your Position as you will say nothing to And you may consider that you directed your paper as to a Protestant who is not contradistinguished to a Catholique but to a Papist if you be a Papist why doe you dissemble it to me If you be not why do we dispute And this Apology may be enough also to refute all your Objections against me of impertinencies and excursions and untrue Allegations if you will take notice also of my Parenthesis And now my Reason intimated in a promise shall be made good in performance And since you will in the question about the Catholique Church abstract from the Roman and all other particulars I shall give some account of Catholiques who did not make the authority of the Catholique Church the ground and cause of their Beleef whereby onely God his Revelation cometh to us infallibly as you expresse your self in your first paper but this Prerogative they ascribed to the Holy Scripture to be it wherein and whereby we are infallibly assured of Gods Will as to what we should beleeve and do in order to salvation That the authority of the Catholique Church is of use towards Faith we deny not but the cause and ground of Faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertaind of the mind of God is not the Proposition of the Church but the Word of God And such being the state of the question betwixt us I shall for your shower of authorities you say you could power out against me give you or shew you a cloud of witnesses as the Apostle speaks Hebr. 12.1 against you Your shower could not wet me through but this cloud may direct you home This Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Church and Scriptures as you may see by the 8.19 20 21. Articles and therefore it is not my Opinion will appear not to be new but agreeable to ancient Catholiques in your own esteem The first shall be Saint Irenaeus Have you appealed to Saint Irenaeus unto Saint Irenaeus shall you goe He in his third book first chapter first words thus We have not known the disposing of our salvation by any other then those by whom the Gospel came to us which then indeed they preached afterwards delivered it to us in the Scriptures by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith So he Now that which is delivered in Scripture by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of Faith is the ground and cause of our Faith And such is the Gospel according to this Testimony The next for us is Clemens Alexandrinus in the seventh of his Stromata towards the end in the 757. p. of the Greek and Latine Edition He which is to be believed by himself reasonably is worthy to be believed by the Lords Scripture and Voice working by the Lord inwardly to the benefit of men So he Then according to him the Holy Scripture is not worthy to be beleeved by men but men are worthy of beleef by it And therefore that must ground our Faith because it is it whereby we beleeve others And therefore he saith in the following words Surely we use it as the Criterium for finding out of things And therefore points are to be decided and determined by authority of it which is his chief discourse against Heretiques even to the end of that book And if you please to peruse and consider it you shall find there that in his judgement the Catholique Church which he also there commends doth not conserve it self in that denomination by its own authority but by the Rule of Scripture Now that which rules the whole rules the parts the Scripture rules the whole then us So Origen upon Saint Matthew Hom. 25. We ought not therefore for confirmation of Doctrine to swear our own apprehensions and to bring into witnesse those which every one of us doth
understand and think to be according to Truth unless he shall shew them to be holy out of that which is contained in the Divine Scriptures as in the certain Temples of God what can be more to our purpose Then the Scripture is the Ground of Doctrines then of Faith As for Athanasius we need not his words knowing his practice of holding the equality of the Divine Nature in the second Person the Son of God against all the World Yet he speaks as he did if you will look upon him about the Incarnation of the Word at the latter end But then having taken occasion by these if thou wilt read the Divine Books and wilt apply thy minde to them shalt learn out of them more plainly and more perfectly the truth of what we have said So he Now where the Truth is learned more plainly and perfectly there is the ground of Truth In the Divine writings is the truth of those things more plainly and more perfectly learned After the same manner doth Tertullian bring in his suffrage in his Book of Praescriptions a little after the beginning of it thus Do we prove the Faith by the Persons or prove the Persons by the Faith And again Faith consists in the rule You have the Law and Salvation by the observation of it And soon after To know nothing against the rule is to know all things And again That which we are the Scriptures were from the beginning we are of them before it was otherwise before they were corrupted by you So he besides other passages wherein he witnesseth for us Saint Ambrose giveth us also his voice in his first Book to Gratian chap. 4. in the beginning thus But I will not that you believe an Argument O holy Emperour and our disputation let us ask the Scripture let us ask the Apostles let us ask the Prophets Then we are to be determined in our Belief by the Scriptures Saint Cyprian also who for order of time should have been put before gives his verdict for us in the beginning of his sixth Sermon concerning the Lords Prayer thus The Evangelical Precepts most beloved Brethren are nothing else but the Divine Magisteries the foundations of building our Hope the firmaments of corroborating our Faith the nutriments of chearing our heart the Gubernacles of directing our journey the safegards of obtaining Salvation which while they do instruct the Docile mindes of Believers upon Earth bring them to the Kingdome of Heaven So the Father Where you see the Scriptures are asserted immediately to be the Ground and Firmanent of Faith Yea neither doth Saint Austin seem to speak onely for your cause In the seventh Tome in the third Chapter of the Unity of the Church against the Epistle of Petilianus in the beginning he hath these words But as I began to say let us not hear these things I say these things thou sayest but let us hear these things the Lord saith There are certainly the Books of the Lord whose authority we both consent unto we both believe we both are obedient to there let us seek our Church there let us discusse our cause And soon after Let those things be taken out of your way which against one another we recite not out of the Divine Canonical books but otherwise And soon after Some may ask why I would have these things taken out of the way since if they brought forth your Communion is invincible he answers because I would not have the Church demonstrated by Humane Documents but by Divine Oracles and so to the end of the Chapter which he concludes thus therefore let us seek it the Church in the Holy Canonical Scriptures I have now made good my words to give you Catholick Testimonies on our side Amongst which Saint Austins authority gives advantage to plant Arguments upon thus If in businesses of dispute we must hear what the Lord saith not what man saith then the Scripture is the ground not humane authority But let us not hear what I say or thou saist saith the Father but what the Lord saith Again Where we must seek the Church there we must resolve our Faith But we must seek the Church in the Scriptures as the Father saith If the Church is to be proved by the Scriptures then the Scriptures are the ground of Faith because they are the ground of the Church there is no resolution of Faith but in that which is indemonstrable therefore not in the Church because that is demonstrated by the Scriptures as he saith Again Divine Oracles are the ground of Faith the Scriptures are the Divine Oracles as he saith as the Scripture saith as Saint Ignatius saith in his Epistle to the Church of Sâ—â—yrna Indeed the proper object of Faith Catholick is the Word of God not the Word of Man And proportionable the cause of this Faith must be divine authority not any authority of Man As demonstrative reason makes Science so humane authority make Opinion but Faith is an assent to that which is spoken by God as true because he speaketh it therefore the authority of the Church is not a mean apt to beget Faith because it is of another kinde and cannot exceed the nature of humane authority although it be the highest in the kinde if it be represented in a lawful General Council Yet even General Councils have erred and therefore they cannot he the Ground of Faith This is the prerogative of the Canonical books as the Father and all Antiquity calleth them but never did we hear of a Canonical Church The Scripture is the Canon is the rule not the Church The Church witnesseth Truth The Church keepeth Truth The Church defendeth Truth The Church Representative in a Council determineth Controversies authoritatively not infallibly and therefore bindes not unto Faith but to Peace not to Faith in the Conscience but to Peace in the Church not affirmatively that we should say it is true because they say it but negatively that we should not rashly oppose it as false because they define it as true Hitherto we go for the honour of the Church Catholick not Roman And now I have given you some reason of our Faith It followes now in your Reply or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Curch Answ I say so too But what from thence To professe a belief that there is a Catholique Church whereof part is triumphant in Heaven part on Earth expectant and to professe my self to belong to the Catholique Church is not inclusive of your sense that the Catholique Church is the ground of our belief We believe the Catholique Church grounded in the Scripture or built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone as Saint Paul speaks Ephes 2.20 Secondly This is not to your purpose because the Catholique Church as it is an object of Belief must be considered as invisible whereas you intend the
Church as visible whose proposals we must receive and submit our understanding unto For the Invisible Church or Church as Invisible cannot order us in our Belief because as such it is not known to us I come now to your Testimonies And your first witnesse is Saint Irenaeus Answ We yeild all to Saint Irenaus nothing to you We say we ought not to seek amongst others the truth which we may easily take and receive from the Church c. Yes because the Church is serviceable to the truth by way of Ministery to deliver the Word of Truth to keep the Word of Truth to uphold the Word of Truth And so we acknowledge the Church to be a sufficient Treasury of Truth because we have therein the Scriptures But the Treasury doth not make the Money true nor currant for it is possible that there may be false Money in the Treasury Therefore we must not take it to be lawfull because it cometh out from thence and so the Scripture is not made true to us or the sense of it evidently credible to us because it is in the Church But we must look whose Image and Superscription the Doctrine hath and whether it be right coyn or not and it may seem to be of the right stamp and yet not Therefore saith Origen in his 34. Hom. upon Matth. All Money 1. Every word that hath the Royal stamp of God and the Image of his Word upon it is lawful Therefore we must bring it to the Word for trial We confesse we may take out of her the drink of Life yes but as out of a cistern such water as cometh from the Fountain the Scripture and we drink out of the Scripture the Water of Life as Tertullian in his Prescriptions We deny not this to be the entrance of Life because we have here the means of grace administred And all without the Church we say are thieves and robbers and they ought to be avoyded Yes All without the bosome of the Catholick Church which would break her Peace and rob her Treasury are as thieves and robbers and ought to be avoyded We grant that those things which are of the Church as being true from Scripture in points of faith or not repugnant to Scripture in things of Discipline are with great diligence to be loved And we allow it that the tradition of Truth is to be received Yes thus the tradition of Scripture the word of Truth or the Truth delivered in writing for so Tradition not seldome signifieth Or tradition of Truth which is according to Scripture as the Apostles Creed Not that whatsoever is delivered should be Truth as you would have it but whatsoever Truth is delivered should be received This is all that place as seemeth to me will afford Your second Testimony from the same Father may it self answer the Objection of the former and may confirm my answer Onely let me adde that he speaketh of the Church then purer then now If you will have more said to this you may find it in Saint Cyprians authority which you produce next The Church Catholick alwayes holdeth not maketh that which she first knew Where in Scripture Where else And where the Church holds that which it thus knew we hold with it and are beholden to the Church for holding it forth to us The Church may inform us of it but it doth not certifie it to us therefore doth not infallibly conveigh it the Truth to us therefore is not the ground of Faith The Office of the Church is as a Candlestick to hold the Light of the Word of Truth And moreover though is did alwayes hold that which it knew might it not also hold somewhat which she did not know Though it did hold that which was true might it not hold that which was false in other things As the Church of Rome holds many things which are true wherein we differ not and also many things false wherein she exceeds the Catholick Faith as in regard of Object Now put case therefore that that ancient Church near the Apostles times did not hold any point false but did hold Every point true yet even from hence nothing will be inferred sufficiently to your purpose unlesse you can prove that it was appointed by God to be the ground of Faith by an impossibility of errour in any particular Such is to be the ground of our Faith which is wanting in the Church not privatively as if it had been ever promised but Negatively because not promised to the Church after the Apostles times If it were possible that the Church might not erre yet this would not make us rest our Faith in it Faith hath no sure footing in such contingencies of Truth unlesse you prove a non-possibility of erring you doe nothing But we come now to the signal testimony of this kind that of Saint Austin I would not beleeve the Gospel unlesse the authority of the Church did move me To which I answer First if the testimonies of the other Fathers be defective in clearnesse or fulnesse as to this matter the testimony of one single Father though excellent will not amount to the Verdict of the whole Church and you have no Fathers yet for you for any thing I see Secondly Take this passage by it self and it seems to speak high but consider it with the tenour of his discourse in the whole chapter and it is like you will begin to think that it comes out from him in some heat of spirit to overcome his adversary Thirdly you will be pleased to give me leave to use a Criticisme which admitted according to the reasonablenesse of it will somewhat change the property of this suffrage It appeareth by compare of places in African writers that as is observed their manner was to expresse the tense more then past by the imperfect and also that he in other places must so be understood And if so here then it must refer to him as when he was a Manichee he was moved then as such by the authority of the Church to the embracing of the Gospel And so we grant that the authority of the Church doth move to beleeve the Scriptures But this cometh not to the case in hand which is intended for particular points of faith whether we should ground our faith of them in the Scripture and not in the proposal of the Church Neither is this an universal way as is pretended of coming to the beleef of the Scriptures by the commendation of the Church for some have been added to the Church immediately from the word as in the second of the Acts at the preaching of Saint Peter as is noted And yet fourthly mark the terms It is not said I would not believe the Gospel unlesse the authority of the Church did cause me but unlesse the authority of the Church did move me And thus this Testimony doth very well agree with our Opinion The authority of the Church might move him although he did ground his
finde in my heart not to say a word to them that you might see I do not give them that respect as to the Fathers And yet take the strength of all their authorities together and make of them an accumulative argument as we may speak yet they do not conclude your cause Calvin and his Schollar in their sayings affirm no more then that which we acknowledge not from them that the Church shall by the assistance of the Spirit be sufficiently furnished with necessary Doctrine unto Salvation but those of the Church invisible may be saved though the Church visible be not Infallible and by consequence not the ground of Faith As for Doctor Saravia's passage I answer it doth not come up close to your purpose The H. G. which beareth rule in the Church objectively is the true Interpreter of Scripture and thus it is not for you And if you understand the Church objectively yet first the matter he seems to speak to is of Discipline about Government of the Church depending upon Primitive Example but we are upon points of Faith Secondly He cannot be contrary to himselfe when he acts as he did formerly in the time of the Apostles but whether he doth so act now is a question yea no question Thirdly If you will with him and from him draw the Government of the Church to be proportionably Episcopal with all my heart I reject them that reject it And your Adversaries of Wittenberg confesse nothing for you The rule they speak of namely Prophetical and Apostolical preaching c. it is the Word of God written according to which she is bound to interpret those places which are obscure and to judge of Doctrines according to the rule which she hath received so as her Interpretations are to be agreeable to the analogy of Faith and her judgements of Doctrines to be made according to the Law of the Word namely harder places are to be expounded by those which are more plain and Controversies to be decided by that rule And all this makes nothing for you For thus the Scripture is the Rule ruling and the Church is but the Rule ruled And thus we follow the Church as the Church followes the rule as Saint Paul saith Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ in the first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11. v. 1. Or if those Lutherans mean by a certain rule any rule distinguished from Scripture it is to be understood of some general heads of Christian Doctrine in proportion whereunto doubtfull places and Doctrines were to be judged But those heads were to be gathered out of Scripture And so all is resolved towards belief in Scripture but I think no man can see how they should say such a rule which was not Scripture was confirmed by miracles So for them And for Doctor Field if you will go through the twentieth chapter of the fourth Book you shall finde nothing in him contrary to this Doctrine For he saith plainly that though the Canonical Books are received by way of Tradition yet the Scriptures have not their authority from the approbation of the Church but they win credit of themselves and yeild satisfaction to all men of their Divine Truth whence we judge that the Church which receiveth them is led by the Spirit of God Observe not because the Church is led by the Spirit of God therefore doth he say she receiveth them but because she receiveth them therefore we judge she is led by the Spirit of God And as for his Rule of Faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles what is he like to mean but the Apostles Creed which he saith there was delivered in the Church as a Rule of her Faith But even this binds not by authority of the Church or upon Vertue of Tradition but by proportion to Scripture where it is found in particulars of matter though not in form of a Creed We confesse also that we should search out the true Church as the same Doctour saith We confesse that the Catholick Church is the Houshold of Faith the Spouse of Christ the Church of the Living God and that we should embrace her Communion and rest in her judgement Yes but how Not ultimately not absolutely not in what so ever she saith because shee saith it but in what so ever shee saith from the Lord. For although she doth goe by an infallible Rule yet are we not sure she goeth by it infallibly Therefore though wee rest in her judgements as to Peace yet can wee not rest in her judgements as to Truth because our understandings are not free to assent to what man will as being bound to assent to that onely which is grounded in the Word of God in matters of Faith And now might I Vie with you in number of Pontificians against you See Durand in his Prologue upon the Sentences where he hath more to our purpose then is necessary to be Transcribed Read him your self Gerson also in his Sermon concerning Errours against Faith and Manners about the Precept Thou shalt not kill saith thus More freely more purely more truely more speedily is Truth found out and Errour reproved if the Divine Law alone be constituted as Judge according to the consideration of Aristotle He which makes the Law the Judge makes God but he that addes Man addes a Beast Panormitanus also upon the 5. of the Decret concerning almes in chap. qualiter quando The saying of any Saint established with the Authorities of the New or Old Testament is preferred before a Papal Constitution even in decision of Causes Also Ferus upon the 1 Epistle of Saint John 2. chapter in the 52.3 page of the Antuerpe Edition thus The Holy Ghost doth teach t is by the means of the Holy Scripture and Word Again The Holy Scripture is given to us as a certain sure Rule of Christian Doctrine And again in the same page For if having the Holy Scripture as a most certain Rule of Christian Doctrine set before our Eyes we notwithstanding teach things so unlike what would be done if the Scriptures were taken away And if you say now that there is added to those places Tradition in the Roman Edition after the Trent Council as is noted You will get nothing by that but shame to the Pontificians And now I think I am not much behind hand with you in Testimonies about the Question But then afterwards you presse harder upon me So you say but I do not yet feel the weight of any thing you say I beleeve the Creed and that the Church is Holy And I do not beleeve but know that from hence nothing is coming to your cause The Catholick Church makes not it self the ground of Faith but is grounded in it as before And how were the first Members of the Catholick Church made Christians but by the Word of God And from the Holynesse of it doth not follow infallibility by the Roman distinction which saith that the Pope may erre
as to his own person but not in matters of Faith as to the Church I beleeve that the Church is the Spouse of Christ and that she is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing as to that part which is in Heaven and that the other part of the Church as invisible which is not yet in Heaven shall be without spot or wrinkle or any such thing when it cometh up to Heaven But I do not beleeve that that Text is meant of the Church visible For all here glorious or none not all glorious here therefore none For you find it in the Text that it is to be presented as a glorious Church namely as in the whole But you will not say that every Member of the visible Church is here glorious without spot without wrinkle or any such thing If you do say so you contradict Bellarmin in his third Book of the Militant Church the second chapter who there includes in his Definition of the Church visible even Reprobates wicked and ungodly men and requires there no internal virtue for the constitution of a Member of the Church but onely an external profession of Faith and communion of Sacraments And besides you know glory which is a perfection of Grace doth not belong to the way but the Country in Heaven And besides if you will not beleeve me in such an Exposition beleeve your Estius who with * In his Retractations p. 9. Ed. Frob. but this Quotation not added in my copy to him Saint Austin understands it upon good Reason of the Church invisible as you may see in Estius Comment upon the place And here by the way we have another Testimony of your own against you if you account your Argument from this Text sufficient to your cause And we have St. Austins authority to boot as Estius quotes him And moreover Holynesse is no formal principle of our direction especially in points of Faith It is Holy because it follows and as it follows the Rule and so should we in faith and manners And therefore if it were to be understood of the Visible Church as it is not yet you conclude nothing for your turn upon this consideration To hasten the next Text is formerly urged the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth Yet squeeze it and presse it and make the best use of it you can it will not afford your inference you would make from it For first some and also very reasonably will refer this Expression not to the Church but to the Mystery of Godlinesse which follows and so they make it as an Hebrew form of setting out some high point and grand Doctrine and then it goes thus A Pillar and Ground of Truth and without Controversie a great Mystery of Godliness is this namely God manifested in the flesh c. If so your interesse in it is sunk and indeed the copulative And and without Controversie doth not seem so well and so close to knit else But it being given not granted that that Criticisme is not sufficient what of all that For Saint Irenaeus as before gives this Eulogy to the Scripture The Scripture gives it to the Church Now to which doth this propertie belong first and absolutely To the Scripture or to the Church Not to the Church for the Church hath it from the Scripture Now that which hath it first hath its absolutely and independently upon that which follows therefore the Scripture is the absolute Pillar and ground of Truth Then there Faith hath sure footing there it sits down there it rests on that Ground upon that Pillar The Church then hath this Title but subordinately and what it saith cannot bind but conditionately to that which is the absolute Ground and Pillar of Truth For the Truth is the Pillar and Ground of the Church as Saint Chysostome saith upon the place Take it then of the Catholick Church not Roman The Text doth more set out the Office of the Church then the authority It doth hold it doth propose it doth uphold the Truth but this doth not convince or evince that whatsoever the Church doth hold we should also hold and upon that account also as if God had appointed the Church infallibly to conveigh to us whatsoever Truth and nothing but Truth And therefore may we and ought we to search the Scriptures as our Savâ—our speaks John 5.39 and by them examine whatsoever the Church saith as those of Beraea did that which was said by Saint Paul and they commended for it And therefore we cannot believe the Definitions of the Church upon its own word Nay can we also say that God doth now give unto the Church such assistance as then which was noted before and therefore we distinguish times not thinking there should be as much said of the Church now as when it included the Apostles and therefore supposing that the Church then did hold all that was true and nothing contrary yet we cannot say it of the Church now and therefore is not the cause of Faith under whose authority it must also passe beside the Divine Revelation to make it Catholique For the Church is conserved by the Truth as Estius also upon the place then thus where the ground of the Catholique Church is there is the ground of Catholique Faith The Scripture is the ground of the Catholique Church unlesse it be conserved by some other principle then by which it is constituted And it is conserved by the Truth saith he and thy word is Truth saith our Saviour John 17.17 And whereas he sayes that the Truth sustaineth the Church and the Church sustaineth the Truth and so one is the cause of the other we answer this is not availeable for you For in the same kinde of cause it cannot be for then we are in a circle but the Truth sustains the Church so as to continue it in its principles the Church sustains the Truth but by way of ministery which doth not make it to be a principle of Faith no not to us Neither do the other Texts speak for you as you would have them If the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church it doth not follow that then Catholique Faith must be built upon the proposalls of the Church Nothing shall prevail to the Condemnation of those who belong to the Church of God as invisible and nothing shall prevail not the Gates of Hell against the Church visible so as somewhere or other there shall not be some who shall professe the Christian Doctrine and Worship sufficiently to salvation The next Text speaks towards Excommunication which comes little into the question for the authority of the Church may proceed to Censure although we be not bound upon peril of want of Faith to submit our understandings to the definitions of the Church As to the authority we may submit so as to endure the censure though we do not submit our judgements as to believe the definitions As to the next place of Scripture
Luke 10.16 We say first this seems not to be rightly applyed to the businesse we are about for this was directed not to the Governors of the Church but to the seventy Disciples or Elders which were sent by Christ to preach the VVord Secondly If you doe extend it to the Representative Church yet doth it not command subjection of judgement alwayes to whatsoever is said but not to despise them as is intimated by what followes and he that despiseth you despiseth me VVe may differ without despising And Thirdly If you will from hence argue that whatsoever was determined in a Council was also determined by Christ then Honorius was by Christ determined an Heretick as you may see in the practicks of the sixth Oecumenical Synod as Nilus in his second Book And if you say that the Church cannot erre in a General Council then resolve Nilus the reason why the Pope doth not hear a General Council for if that General Council did not erre as by your argument it must not then the Pope did erre As for the other places of Holy Scripture which you produce of Christs being with his Church to the end of the world and of his promise of leading his Church into all truth VVe answer together First Though the promise be extendible to the end of the world yet it is not necessary to understand it so as that there shall alwaies be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles which is hard to affirm since we cannot say that there is such necessity for such assistance or such dispositions in the Governours of the Church to receive such assistance Secondly The Promise is made good by a sufficient direction of the Church to their end of happinesse although not without possibility of error For every simple error doth not deprive the Church of Salvation and then it may also recover it self from errour by more perusal of the Scriptures But if it may at all erre it hath not the property of a ground of Faith nor a just capacity of an Infallible communication of all things which are to be believed You go on Now this Church whose Authority is thus warranted did precede the Scriptures Answ VVarranted as a Church but not as so not as Infallible Did precede the Scriptures which for a great part were written upon emergent occasions as you say Answ As for the writing of Scriptures and the emergent occasions you may be further referred to Doctor Field whom you made use of against me VVhatsoever the occasion was the end was to make what was written a sufficient rule of Faith and Manners And as for your objection and inference upon it VVe answer with a distinction the Scripture is considerable two wayes either in respect to the substance of Doctrine or secondarily in respect to the manner of delivery by writing in the first regard the Scripture did precede the Church for the Church was begotten by it which to them was as certain as the written to us And if you could make your Traditions of proper name equally certain you would say somewhat And as for Scripture that which is written doth binde though it doth not properly binde as written You say that the Church was called the Pillar and ground of Truth before it was written and so you say might be said of other passages We answer As that place expressed it doth not appear to us that it was so called since first we find it in termes in Saint Pauls Epistle But if so or other like were used before the answer before will serve By all which places the authority of the Church is commended to us and we are referred to the Church as a Guide in all our Doubts So you say and so we say Where is the Adversary How doth this conclude contradictorily We confesse that the Authority of the Church is commended to us in Scripture but not directly in every place you name nor in any is it so commended to us as to ground our Faith We confesse we are referred to the Ministers for Direction and to the Governours for jurisdiction yet are not the Latter Masters of our Faith unto whom we should be bound in a blind Obedience of Universal assent or practice We take their advice but we are not by them determined in our Faith We may beleeve what they say but not because they say it As it is drawn from Scripture so it draweth us If they make it probable that it is so because they say it yet it hath not the certainty of Faith without the Word of God I should be very tender of incompliance with the judgement of the whole Church but yet I must have for my warrant of Faith the Lord saith And although there be no appeal from a General Council yet have they no infallible judgement You proceed even the Scripture it self is beleeved upon the Tradition and authority of the Church Answer This was touched before in the case of Saint Austin and it is in effect answered as before by Doctor Field Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church but we doe not take them to be Canonical by Tradition from the Church The authority of the Church moves me as to the Negative not to dissent but assent is settled to them as such in the way of Faith because they are such In thy Light we shall see Light as the Psalmist speaks Psalm 36.9 or by thy Light so by Scripture we see Scripture Next follows the Expostulation which may be put into this discourse Either we ground our beleef upon the Church or upon our own fancy and private Interpretation of Scripture c. Answer We deny your disjunction VVe ground our beleef neither upon the authority of the Church as you nor upon fancy neither as some have done who have been better friends to Romans then they have been to us as Doctour Whitaker told Campian upon a like imputation of Anabaptastical fancies VVe differ from you because we allow to private Christians a judgement of discretion or discerning which sure is commended in that precept Prove all things in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians 5.21 We differ from those who magnifie their private interpretations because we say they should be directed by their Ministers and ordered by the Bishops the Pastours of the Church chiefly when they are assembled in a General Council wherein is the highest power of Oyer and Terminer as we may speak of hearing and ending differences in the Church yet we cannot say that we are absolutely bound unto their Canons we having the judgement of private discretion and they not the judgement of Infallibility And if you cannot say that they are absolutely without any doubt but true without doubt we can say that we should not absolutely beleeve them Every possible defect of certainty in the Object excludes Faith the certainty whereof admits no falsity Therefore can we not presently yeeld or assent to whatsoever is by them defined
your self See how you now differ from your selfe Before the ground of Believing was the authority of the Church now the authority of God revealing the cause of their belief Before you concluded Faith consisted in submitting the understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it now it is the authority of God revealing which causes their faith to be Divine As for the term thus the formal object is such under which and in respect whereunto any thing proceedeth if then Gods Revelation cometh not to us under the Proposal of the Church or as proposed by the Church then the cause is lost if it doth then grant me my term and affirm with me that the Pontificians hold so If not they are better then you And what means else their implicite faith unlesse we are to believe every thing as the Church believeth it and because the Church proposeth it as you said and if we be to beleive every thing as the Church believe it then is the Church the formal object of their faith since they are also bound not to doubt but simply to obey as Bellarmine tells us in his fourth Book of the Roman Bishop 5. chap. The other term you find fault with is excesse of faith You taxe it as improperly spoken But surely it will passe without any Grain of Salt or of allowance if we consider that Faith may be compared as to a particular object and so there is not an Excesse of Faith as to that but then it may be compared as to many objects and so though we do not more believe one thing then we should if we should indeed believe it yet may we believe more then we should If we believe those things which are not at all to be believed And thus if we should believe whatsoever the Church of Rome proposeth we might be destroyed for excesse of Faith The Church of Rome is peccant in excesse of Faith by believing more points then it should believe and this is the reason why our Divinity is in negatives as to differences with them because their Divinity in differences to us is in additions SIR If you will excuse me for being so long I shall now conclude with the whole conclusion of Saint Austin whereof you gave me but part Against Reason no Sober Man will go against Scriptures no Christian then Christians should go by Scriptures against the Church no Peace-maker The Roman Catholick's first Treatise How in these times in which there be so many Religious the true Religion may certainly be found out The Preface THE Romane Catholicks have often foretold that by permitting freely to all sorts of people whatsoever the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother Tongue multitudes of New Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberless Number and as for the Peoples Manners they would daily grow worse and worse How true this is let the world judge That then which now mainly imports is to distinguish the true Religion from so many false ones This is my Aim To effect this I did write a short Paper shewing the Catholick Church so to teach the infallible way to Salvation which is to be obtained onely in the true faith that we cannot have as things stand any other Assurance to ground our faith upon securely I did never deny that when by the Infallible Authority of the Church we are secured that the Scriptures be the word of God we cannot believe such things as are clearly contained in the Scripture for so I should deny that I could not believe that to be infallibly true which upon an Infallible ground I believed to be Gods own word But I did and still do maintain that no man can have Infallible ground to believe the Scriptures now but he who first believeth that which the Church teacheth to be infallibly true Whence it will follow that his faith must needs now at the first be grounded upon the Revelation of Gods truth made by God to us by his Church and not by his written word The Papers I did write to this Effect have been answered by some truly Learned Scholar so that I hope so worthy a Man will not reject such a Reply as may seem to be as clear a Demonstration as any wise Man can hope for in this Matter And such a Demonstration I hope by Gods grace to make whilst I endevour to make good the Title prefixed to this Paper which Title I now add to shew that my chief drift is to guide a Soul redeemed by Christs blood to that happy eternity to which we cannot attain unless in all doubtful Controversies of faith we follow the Catholick Church as an Infallible Judge in all those Controversies we being obliged under pain of damnation not to dis-believe this Judge And whilst I demonstrate this I do demonstrate my former Position That the Infallible Authority of the Catholick Church is the Ground of our faith And also going on with this Demonstration I will leave nothing of Concernment unanswered in the Reply made and thus I will conclude contradictorily to the said Reply which a little after the beginning denyeth The Authority of the Catholick Church to be the Ground of faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertained of the minde of God I answer not the Reply just in the Order that my Answer was returned for so I should be over-long I use this way of a little Treatise to prove my Title for thus all will be more clear and less tedious In the Conclusion I shew all the parts of the Reply to have been fully answered in this Discourse The Proof of the Title St. Anselme hath a very fit Similitude to express how much a Contentious Spirit in disputing doth blind the understanding from seeing the Manifest Truth He sayeth that a little before Sun-rising two men in the fields did fall into a hot debate concerning that place of the Heavens in which the Sun was that day to rise the one pointing out one part of the Heavens the other another They passed so far in their Contention that falling together by the Ears they both pulled out one anothers Eyes and so when the Sun by and by after did rise neither of them both could see a thing so clear as was the place of the Sun rising To our purpose Because Zeal in Religion is accounted laudable and also because prejudice caused by Education in such or such a Religion is a thing exceedingly swaying us to our own side we are commonly apt to grow into so hot a debate in disputations about Religion that I may freely say This Passion hindreth many thousands from seeing that clear Sun-shine of Truth which men of mean Capacity would clearly behold if setting all passion and prejudice aside they did with a Calm and humble Mind beg of God to give them this grace of seeking Truth with all sincerity for then he who should seek should find This is proved manifestly
was presently ready to submit his Judgment If then we will not be guilty of so intolerable a pride in overvaluing our own private Judgment of Discretion with so manifest hazard of missing that without which we cannot please God or be â—â—â—ed then will it highly concern us to enquire carefulnesses that Holy way which will be unto us a direct way so that fools cannot erre by it For such a way our God hath promised us Let us search carefully after it This Promise of God had not been performed and Christ at his coming had but pittifully provided for his Church if he had not left it some certain Judge whose Judgment All men should be interiourly for faith is in the Interiour bound to follow in all their differences and Controversies insomuch that it must be one of the highest degrees of Treason against God not to submit his Judgment to the Judgment of him whom God should appoint for the Judge of all Matters of faith For if there be no such severe Obligation to submit to the Judgment of this Judge then might every Man chuse whether he would in his Interiour Judgment submit to this Judge or No. And so that very Absurdity and very Perdition of Souls would follow which is in the having no Judge at all to wit that every Man might believe in his Interiour Judgment in which onely faith consists what should seem to him to be grounded in Scripture And so as the private Judgment of discretion in one Man is directly Opposite and Contrary to another Mans private Judgment of discretion the faith of the One would be directly contrary to the faith of the Other And yet there is but one faith True without which One true faith it is Impossible to please God and consequently to be saved How then should God have provided sufficiently for Mens Salvation if after their most Careful reading and Conferring the Scriptures No One Man among those Thousand Men who even then differ in Religion No One Man I say but that One Man who holdeth the Truth which is but One should Interiourly follow that faith without which it is Impossible to be saved It must needs then be a most damnable Sin to commit that highest treason against Gods Judge which is committed by not submitting our Interior Judgment unto him being that in this our proceeding we go a way in which all unity in Interiour faith which is in the first place to be regarded is wholly Impossible to be kept Let us then see as a thing which concerneth us both most neerly who is Guilty of this high Treason I who am a Roman Catholick or You who are not for our faith being Contrary in Prime points one of us must needs go astray from that One faith without which it is Impossible to please God And he of us Two who thus strayeth therefore strayeth and by doing so teacheth others to stray because he doth not submit his Judgment to the Judgment of this Judge for if we both did this we should joyn in all possible unity of this One true faith And here comes in that most Important question Who is this Judge to whom All are thus to submit their Judgment in all Controversies of faith For if we can find out this Judge we can never remain in any doubt for without all doubt we must stand to the Judgment of this Judge what reasons soever our private Judgment of Discretion may suggest or else we had as good have no Judge at all and it is not our Own private Judgment of discretion but the Publick Judgment of that Judge whom Christ hath appointed us and which we are obliged to follow as hath been shewn All Protestants do say that the Scripture and onely the Scripture is left us by Christ for our Judge to end and determine with Infallible Authority all our doubts differences and Controversies in Religion And in this their Tenent they agree with all Hereticks which have risen up against the Church of Christ We Roman Catholicks do profess that all reverence and all Credit is due unto the Scriptures as unto the Infallible word of God insomuch that we are ready to give our lives in defence of any thing which is affirmed in Scripture I add that we and only we do truly believe the Scriptures for he only truly believeth any thing with divine faith who groundeth his Assent upon divine Revelation But the â—ssent of Roman Catholicks only with which they believe the Scriptures to be Gods undoubted word is grounded on divine Revelation manifested to them by his Church which as I will shew is Infallible The Assent by which others believe the Scriptures to be Gods undoubted word is not grounded on this Revelation manifested by his Church as they all confess neither is it grounded upon any other divine Revelation as I will now prove For if there be any such Revelation manifested to them it is manifested to them in the Scriptures as they say But there is no such Revelation manifested to them in the Scriptures for it is written no where in the Scriptures that such and such books of Scripture be Canonical and the undoubted word of God therefore this cannot be believed for any Revelation made manifest to us in Scripture They believe therefore this without any revelation made by God and so their Belief is not Divine but a humane belief just such an one as we have that such and such a book is Virgil's such a book is Cicero's c. And if they tell me that they by reading Canonical Scriptures do see a light clearly manifesting them to be Gods word I answer that the sight by this light is no certain divine revelation but a humane perswasion subject to falsity and that far more then the light by which whole General Councels have seen the quite Contrary as I clearly will prove Numb 13. A second convincing Argument to prove that onely we truely believe the Scriptures is that all others who understand not Hebrew and Greek in which the Scriptures were written cannot know by any divine faith the undoubted word of God but they all take upon trust of Men fallible the Translations which they call Gods word which Translations are full of many and gross corruptions as concerning our English Bible in particular many have shewed Now then there is not one amongst ten thousand who perfectly understand Greek and Hebrew Therefore all the rest have onely a humane perswasion that their Scriptures be Gods uncorrupted word For I am sure it is no where revealed that these Translations be Gods uncorrupted word The Roman Catholick hath still the Authority of a Church Infallible to assure him which is which is not Gods uncorrupted word This Authority I will prove to be Divine and warranted by God But yet we hold it Impossible that the book of the Scripture should be the Judge appointed by Christ to end all Controversies or that it should be that Holy way that shall be unto
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
their Souls upon that their conceived certainty Thus you see when the Scripture in four several places delivereth these four words This is my Body Men will hold it to be clear that so clear words be not clear and will venture their Salvation upon this their Imagination In this and many other points we say the Scripture is clear for us The Lutherans say it is clear for them The Calvinists say it is clear for them We have conferred Place with Place we have looked in the Originals and after all this the Scripture doth not decide this Controversie but when all is done we are as far from Agreeing and being brought to the undoubted knowledge of the most important truth as we were at the beginning Another very strong Argument to declare that the Scripture cannot be the Judge of all Controversies in points of Faith necessary to Salvation is this That there be many points the believing of which is necessary to Salvation which points are no where set down clearly in Scripture For first you make it the chief point of all points to believe the Scripture to be the Judge of all Controversies and by it self sufficient to end them all I ask where is this point of points which you make the ground of your belief where is it I say set down in Scriptures and that so clearly that no prudent doubt can be made but that such words clearly say what you say Doth not Saint Athanasius in his Creed put down as an undoubted Article of Catholick Faith which Faith as he saith without a Man hold it entirely and inviolably without all doubt he shall perish eternally doth he not put down there that we must believe That God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father only that the holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but doth proceed and that both from the Father and the Son And that he who will be saved must believe thus And yet how far are these most hard points from being clearly deliver'd in the Scripture So also that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father and of the same Substance is a certain Article of Faith and yet no where clearly delivered in Scripture but was believed by All upon the sole Authority of the Church which consequently was believed Infallible I have already shewed that the necessary cōmandment of keeping the Sunday in place of the Saturday is no where in Scripture but rather the contrary How then can I believe this for the Scripture or for any clear place of it there being no such place to be found I have also shewed that it is no where in Scripture set down at all much lesse set down clearly and manifestly which Books of Scripture be Canonical which not How then by the Testimony of Scripture which giveth no Testimony at all of this point can I believe such books undoubtedly to be such not to be Canonical Baptisme of Children to be Necessary to their salvation is a prime point of Belief and yet you cannot believe this prime point upon any clear place of Scripture for there is no such place but you must all say with the great Saint Austin That though nothing for certain can be alledged out of Canonical Scriptures in this point yet in this point the truth of Scriptures and consequently a sufficient ground for Faith is kept by us when we do that which seemed good to the Catholick Church which Church the Authority of the same Scriptures doth commend Contra Crescon l 1.13 And this following the Tradition of the Church he calleth The most true and inviolable Rule of Truth He holdeth therefore Tradition of the Church so Infallible that it may be a ground for Faith He was taught so by Saint Paul 2 Thes 2. Hold the Traditions which you have received either by word of Mouth or by Epistle Upon which place Saint Chrysostome having taught that the Apostles delivered many things by word of Mouth not set down any where in writing he saith that these unwritten Traditions are worthy of the same belief which those deserve which are written It is a Tradition of the Catholick Church Seek no further So he But you say I must seek further to find this in Scripture yet Saint Chrysostome tells me that being a Tradition of the Church it is Gods Word and upon this account as worthy to be believed as if it were his written Word for it is the being his Word and not the being of his written Word which maketh it Infallibly true Well then It having been made clear by all these reasons and authorities that the Scriptures cannot be intended by Christ for the Judge of all our Controversies in Faith and that their reading cannot be that Holy way a way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it Let us see where this way is to be found and who is to be judge to define all Controversies with Infallible authority so that all are bound to submit their Interiour judgement in which all faith consists to this Authority it being high Treason against Christ not to submit to an Authority instituted by him purposely to oblige all to this submission I say this Judge is the Catholique Church This I will prove first and this being proved I will shew briefly that no Church but the Roman can prudently be held to be this Catholique Church In proof of the Catholique Church her being Judge of all Controversies I alledge first those words Matth. 16. v. 18. I say unto thee that is to St. Peter by name Thou art Peter that is Thou art a Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it that is those Gates of Hell out of which so many damnable Errours shall issue shall never prevail by inducing any damnable Error into that Church which I will build upon thee O Peter and thy Successours which I add because this Church was not to be built upon the Person of St. Peter onely for then this fair building had fallen to the ground when St. Peter had died They who do say that the Church may fall into damnable Errors do say that the Church may fall to the ground and that the Gates of Hell may prevail against it for what greater fall can it have then by damnable Errors to make its Members all fall into Hell and in what manner can the Gates of Hell more prevail against it And yet we are sure by Gods Word that shall never happen Wherefore in this Church we imbrace most groundedly all things proposed by it to be believed Here you see our Judge Christs Church hath Gods warrant to warrant Her from bringing in any damnable Error by her Judgement All may therefore securely obey But that none can securely disobey her Judgement Christ also doth warrant us in the next Chapter but one for Matth. 18. v. 17. he saith Tell the Church and if he
will not hear the Church Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and Publican Here you see all Causes of greater Importance are to be brought to this Judge for if even private complaints are to be brought into her Tribunal and if for disobedience after her Judgement given of them a man be to be hold for a Publican or Heathen much more are enormiously hurtful crimes such as are the crimes of Heresie to be carried to her Tribunal and those who in so much more Importing matters disobey are also much more to be held for Publicans and Heathens And that no man may think that after this his condemnation he may stand well in his Interiour persisting still in the same judgement and doing so stand right in the sight of God it followeth Amen I say unto you Prelates of my Church VVhatsoever ye shall bind upon Earth shall also be bound in Heaven You see I have found a Judge so securely to be followed in his Judgement and so unsafely to be disobeyed that his Sentence given upon Earth is sure to be ratified in Heaven This also could not be true if this Judge were fallible in such prime causes as most concern the Church and all such causes are those which may bring in damnable Errors Conformably to this doctrine of the Church her being our Judge Saint Austin de Civit. l. 20.9 expounds to our purpose those words of the Apocalypse or Revelation cap. 20. ver 4. I saw Seats and they sate upon them and Judgement was given them It is not to be expounded of the last Judgement but of the Seats of Prelates and the Prelates themselves by which the Church is now governed are to be understood All this which I have said out of the New Testament you will the lesse wonder at if you Note that even in the Old Law it is said The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and they shall require the Law from his Mouth because he is the Angel of the Lord God of Hosts Mal 2. Note here a grosse corruption of the English Bible which readeth these words The Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth whereas the Originals speak clearly in the future Tense Here by the way I must tell you that though the Scripture were to be Judge yet your most corruptd English Scriptures cannot be allowed for Judge Whence it followeth that those who do understand onely English can judge of nothing by their Scripture And so they must trust their Ministers to the full as much even in this highest point as we do our Priests in any point But let us proceed You see first that I have found a way so direct that fools cannot erre by it for any man may ask the Priests of the Church what is the known Doctrine of the Church and then let him rest securely when he knoweth that Secondly you see I have found such a Judge as all true believers had for all their Controversies for more then two thousand years together before Moses did write the first Books of Scripture all which time you must needs make the Tradition of the Church the infallible Rule of Faith for here was no written Word of God upon which their Faith could be built and yet Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4. speaking of those who lived in those Ages before all Scripture saith They had the same Spirit of Faith And the reason is clear for the Word of God is the same whether it be revealed by the Pen or by the Tongue written or not written And what saith St. Irenaus l. 3. c. 4. if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures Must we not have followed that order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose Charges they left the Churches to be governed To this order of Tradition by the unwritten word many of those barbarous Nations do assent who have believed in Christ without any writing or Inke having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and keeping diligently the ancient Traditions So St. Irenaeus who you see holdeth manifestly unwritten Traditions of the Church to be a sufficient Ground of Faith It is most manifestly true which he saith that upon this ground the Faith of whole Nations have relyed This ground therefore is infallible all Nations Faith relying on this even two Thousand years and more before the first Scriptures were written and the Faith of many other Nations who since their writing have believed and do believe the true Faith For how many of them never did see the Scriptures at all or never did see them in a Language which they could understand Neither did the Apostles or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as they could all or the greater part understand They thought the Tradition of the Church a sufficient Rule of Faith for all which they could not do if this Rule were fallible We must therefore confesse it to be Infallible Thirdly I have not onely found a Judge so clearly pointing out the way that fools cannot erre by it but such a Judge as no exception can be taken against his sufficiency for no other Judge was in the Church for some Thousands of years amongst the most true Beleevers and afterwards amongst whole Nations Fourthly I have found a Judge to whom Christ hath given a certain Promise to teach no damnable error by which Doctrine the Gates of Hell should prevail against her Fiftly I have found a Judge whom All men are obliged I say obliged by Interiour Assent in point of Faith to obey under pain of being held here for Heathens or Publicans and looked upon as such by the Judgement of Heaven binding what the Church bindeth Sixtly I have found a living Judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time and who can hear Me and You and be heard by Me and You that neither I nor You can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we doubt we can propose our doubt and she will tell us clearly her meaning whereas the Bible can neither hear a Thousand new Controversies which arise daily nor be heard clearly to give any certain Sentence in them but onely say the same still which she said even before the Controversies began and about which Sentence of hers all the Controversie did arise neither doth the Bible give any such Judgement as will suffice to hold these and these men who teach these and these errors for Heathens and Publicans which the Church doth so clearly and so manifestly that they themselves cannot deny themselves to be condemned by the Church together with their Doctrine but all they can do is to raile against their Judge which the damned shall do against Christ their Judge I see no exception there can be made against this Judge Onely you will tell me that Infallibility is wholly necessary for the Judge of Faith which I
clearer then this if I say such a thing was done by Cicero the Father of his Countrey and Caesar did such another thing What I say more clear then that in this speech I call Cicero The Father of his Country and not Caesar of whom as yet I had not so much as spoken So the Apostle had not so much as spoken of any Mystery when he spoke these words which lie thus in your own Bible That thou maist know how to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of the Truth and without Controversie great is the Mystery of Godlynesse c. Do you not see that he had not so much as spoken of this Mystery when he said the former words which in all kind of Construction per Appositionem clearly relate to the Church O but my Adversary tells me that this title of being The Pillar and Foundation of Truth agreeth in the first place to the Scripture I answer it agreeth equally to any thing that is the True Word of God and therefore it agreeth to the Scripture because God speaketh by it in it but God also speaketh by his Church and in his Church giving as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Councel as he gave to him who did deliver his Word in Scripture for example as he gave to Solomon who in his own person came to play the Idolater It is objected also that in these words rather the Office of the Church is set forth then her Authority To which my Answer is clear that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out then by saying that she is The Pillar and ground of Truth for what Authority can rely more safely then that which relyeth on the Pillar of Truth What Authority can be better founded and grounded then that which is founded and grounded upon the Ground and Foundation of Truth So that nothing can be more clear against Scripture then to say it doth not set out the Authority of the Church in this place No Text being clearer for any thing Hence when the Church had defined that God the Son was Consubstantial to his Father that is of one and the same substance which is no where clearly said in Scripture St. Athanasius calleth this Definition of the Church the Word of God saying that ever hereafter this Definition of the Nicen Councel That Word of God by the Nicen Councel doth remain for ever and ever Ep. ad African Episc Behold here the Definition of the Councel called The Word of God remaining for ever and ever Is not this to acknowledge the Church Infallible in her Definition That place also out of St. Matthew proveth strongly the Churches infallibility Christ there bids his Apostles to teach and Baptize all Nations adding And behold I am with you all dayes even to the consummation of the world My Adversary saith It is not necessary to extend this Promise to Christ his being with the Church to the end of the world which is all one as to say It is not necessary that Christ his Promise should be true For surely he cannot promise more clearly to be with his Church to the end of the world If he should say I will be with you for a Thousand years he should not perform his promise unlesse he were with it a thousand years wherefore promising to be with it even to the consummation of the world to make his promise true he must be with them so long Now the Apostles were not so long as the end of the world baptizing and preaching but their successors are with them therefore Christ must be to the consummation of the world And though these successors of the Apostles be not so worthy of Infallible Assistance as the Apostles were yet Christ giving the gift of infallible assistance not for the worth of the person to whom it is given but for the secure direction of so many millions as were to be of the Church after Christ his time there is as much yea far more reason why he should leave the like secure direction for them because the further we go from Christs time the more we are subject to uncertainties about his Doctrine See Numb 21. It being then proved that Christ will be with his Church untill the consummation of the world and it being manifest that he is not with those who live in damnable Errors we must of necessity say that Christs Church in all ages lived secured from damnable Errors or else there was some Age in which he was not with it and in which he performed not his promise And the same is to be said of that place of St. John 14. And I will aske the Father and he will give you another Paraclete that may abide with you for ever the Spirit of Truth This abiding of the spirit of Truth for ever secures us for ever from all damnable Errors Admirably St. Austin l de utilit cred c. 6 If the Providence of God doth not preside in humane affairs in vain would sollicitude be about Religion but if God be thus present with us truely we are not to despair that there is some Authority appointed by the same God on which Authority we relying as on an assured step may be lifted up to God So he But if this step be fallible It is no assured step Gods providence therefore hath left an Infallible Authority in his Church such an Authority as the first Church had for 2000. years before any Scripture was written And do not tell me that all this is then only true if the Church judgeth conformably to Scripture for even in that sense the Devil himself the Father of Lyes is Infallible as long as he teacheth conformably to Scriptures and the Gates of Hell cannot by any error prevail against the Devil of Hell yea as long as he teacheth conformably to Scripture he is The Pillar and Ground of Truth Hath God in the Texts alledged given no more to the Church then to the Devils And how is this answer to the purpose seeing that for two Thousand years before Scripture no man could know what was conformable to Scripture yea nothing was then conformable to any Scripture there being no Scripture at all And the Church then had not Gods Promise which in all the Texts Authorities and Reasons above alledged is that the Church shall at no time teach any thing that in any damnable matter 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 thus clearly is fulfilled those notable words in the Prophet Daniel cap. 2. v. 44. In the dayes of those Kingdomes the God of Heaven will raise up a Kingdome which shall not be dissipated and his Kingdome shall not be delivered to another people and it shall break in pieces and consume all these Idolatrous Kingdomes and it shall stand for
Why so Mark if his ground be not as I told you Because saith he I have believed the Gospel it selfe upon the preaching of the Catholiques Can he more clearly ground upon the Infallible Authority of their teaching then upon this to believe the Gospel it selfe He goeth on thus Again If you hold to the Gospel my hold shall still be on the Authority of that Church upon whose Authority I believed the Gospel I saith he will hold my self to those by whose teaching I have believed the Gospel and these commanding me I will not believe thee And Saint Austin goeth so far upon this Ground as a Ground Infallible that he saith If perhaps you Manichaeans can find me any clear place in the Gospel to prove that Apostleship of Manichaeus that then indeed they shall weaken the Authority of the Catholiques But what do you think will follow I pray note it well Their Authority being weakned and shewed once fallible now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel And why so Because upon the Authority of these Catholiques I had believed the Gospel The ground of his belief in the Gospel was their Infallible authority as not onely these but also the next words shew manifestly Wherefore saith he if in the Gospel there be found nothing that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus then I will believe the Catholiques rather then You. But if You shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle then I will neither believe the Catholiques nor thee Why so I will not believe the Catholiques because they whose Doctrine I thought Infallible have lyed to me concerning your Manichaeans But I will not believe thee even when thou citest clear Scripture for of this case he speaketh and why so Because thou dost cite me that â—cripture to which Scripture I had now believed upon their Authority who have lyed unto me Thus he Could he more clearly say that if once in one single Lye he should finde the Churches Authority to be fallible he should then have left unto him no Infallible Ground at all upon which he were to believe Scripture To deliver a Doctrine thus inculcated over and over again and thus still relying on this one Ground is far and very far from letting a word slip in heat of disputation And therefore to speak plainly my Adversary could not deal sincerely when he said If we considered the whole Chapter we should be of his minde for nothing can make us lesse of his minde then to consider the whole Chapter as I have faithfully done excepting one little parcel in the end which most strongly confirmes all I have said for it followeth but God forbid I should not believe the Gospel having so Infallible Authority for it as the Church is yet believing this Gospel I do not see how I can believe thee teaching me Manichaeus to be an Apostle for we know which Apostle it was who was chosen in the place of Judas the Traytor This we have read in the Acts of the Apostles And because the Manichaeans did not believe the Acts of the Apostles he addeth which Book of the Acts I must necessarily believe if I believe the Gospel And why Because the Catholique Authority doth in like manner commend both these Scriptures to me See here again most evidently he saith the Ground upon which he believeth the Acts of the Apostles as well as he believed the other Scriptures to be the self-same Catholique Authority which in one and the same manner commendeth both Scriptures to us to be believed Had he said that he believed this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it by which he discovered it to be Canonical then the Manichaeans might as easily have said that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical Thus I have given a large and most faithful account of this Chapter setting most of it down word for word And this last place as also many other quite overthrow what my Adversary saith that he spoke here of himself as now a Manichaean for you see he speaketh of himself as one believing the Acts of the Apostles and believing it by a necessary consequence because he hath already believed the other Canonical Books upon the same Authority of the Church And if upon this Authority I may with St. Austin believe the whole Scripture to be Gods Word from the beginning to the ending though it containeth so many strange Stories such a world of several points why may I not upon the same Infallible Authority believe Prayers to Saints Prayer for the dead and other like points Neither can it be said that St. Austin as my Adversary saith was settled in the belief of the Scripture for the authority of Scripture it self for I have given you his plain words to the contrary saying that the Authority of the Church being weakned he cannot now so much as believe the Gospel which he might still do if he believed it for it self and not merely for the Infallible Authority of the Church yea l. de Utilit Cred. cap. 14. he saith that his belief in Christ was grounded upon that Authority which certainly he must then needs hold for Infallible If he did thus and was never noted for singularity in his faith for doing thus why may not I prudently doe what he did Yea how can I poor simple creature not doe imprudently if I refuse to do what he did who understood the Scriptures as well as any man the Church had Having now shewed the Church to be the Judge appointed by Christ for all Controversies and that the Definition of this Judge is Infallible and consequently a sufficient ground for Faith I will now show that all this Doctrine must be applyed to the Roman Church and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church For first this Protestant Church doth not so much as lay claim either to have any such Authority as being Judge in all Points of Controversie or to the having any infallible Authority If either of these belonged to her she would know her own right from which she now disclaims and so by her own doctrine she cannot be Judge or infallible for so as an Infallible Iudge she should judge her self to be fallible No more need to be said to exclude her or any other Church acknowledging by evident and infallible Scripture as they profess their own fallibility and that they are not Iudges in Controversies being infallibly fallible and so uncapable of these Priviledges as is Evident And even this might serve to exclude all other Churches but the Roman She onely claimeth as she is bound to do her due right to be Judge in all Controversies and her infallible authority to decide them with truth All other Churches of all other Religions doe say indeed that they are themselves the onely true Churches but none of them say themselves to be either
the Church not to permit the use of Scripture unto the People and also you do abate of the Universal Proposition in the first Paper that Divine Faith in all things is caused by the proposal of the Church and therefore if you would hold you to this the Controversie would be lessened betwixt us for dato non concesso that we are bound to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God by the authority of the Church yet when we do thus believe it then the immediate ground of our Faith in those things clearly set down is the written Word of God and not the authority of the Church So then your first Number is indeed in no Number for you cannot mean thus that we cannot believe any thing proposed plainly in Scripture unlesse we believe the authority of the Church in that particular And therefore when you have proved the authority of the Church to be that which causeth and determineth our Faith of Scripture to be the Word of God you will say lesse then formerly and untill you do prove it you say nothing As touching the expressions you make in the second Number of him who answered the Papers give him leave if not to be the adversary herein yet to differ from you and to think himself to be one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England Neither did you intend by courteous and respective words to draw him to your opinion Soft words alone will not do it but soft words with hard arguments may do more When we see a clear demonstration of truth it is no courtesie to yeild assent for the Understanding cannot refuse Truth when it doth shew it selfe But whether the Reply as you speak be as clear a demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter let me have the liberty and the civility if in these businesses it hath any place not to determine Only it is very hard to say who doth optimum quod sic as they speak the best of the kinde Yet also wise men may think that if there can be nothing more expected towards ths defence of your first position the cause is wanting to it And certainly such a wise man and ingenuous as you be will not content himselfe with any ascertainment but that which is absolute and uncapable of Error Therefore not to deceive you by your own commendations put it to issue bring it to the test try the debate betwixt us by this rule of Wisdome and Conscience also Tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum It is certain that the Scripture is Infallible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is Infallible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the Rule and Ground and Cause of Faith As for the good designe you mention here and in your Title to guide Souls redeemed by Christ to the happy Eternity I congratulate to you that desire but I am sorry that such a zeal is better then the way you lead them in Assuredly those Souls redeemed by the Blood of Christ may and shall come to happinesse without any Infallible Judge of Controversies on Earth For first those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture matters of question we are in no such danger by the ignorance of reserving a purpose not to contradict what we shall be convinced in on either part Secondly We may be directed in these points by Judges though not Infallible as unto the quiet of the Church Thirdly Untill your Infallible Judge appears to be truly such it is the best way not to be bound intuitively to his dictates for then we might be in possibility of being bound to believe an errour which is repugnant to the understanding Ex natura rei So that until you make good the Title of an infallible Judge whom as you say we are obliged under pain of damnation not to disbelieve I shall hold up my hand onely in admiration of your confidence And whilest you do demonstrate this that we are bound under pain of damnation not to disbelieve this Judge of yours You say you do demonstrate your former Position that the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church is the ground of our Faith So you yes because you say that the Catholique Church is the infallible Judge To this thus Is it the infallible Judge whereunto we are bound to submit our understandings in all things or not if in all things then we cannot believe what the Scripture saith in plain points without the proposal of the Church which now seems contrary to your mind if not in all things but onely whether the Scripture be the Word of God or in cases of Controversie then do you now go lesse then in your former paper against the nature of implicite Faith Secondly that the authority of the Church is not it upon which we resolvedly rest our Faith of the Scripture or the determination of Controversies we shall see when you come to it Thirdly what do you mean by the Church do you understand it formally of the people or representatively in an Assembly of the Pastors if you mean it of the people also how is infallibility vested in them Are we bound to stand to their judgement and they are to be in obedience to their Pastors Well then it must be understood of their Pastors What of all or most or one If of all when did they all Vote if of most when did most Vote If of one ordinary Pastor with or in a General Council then remember whensoever in your sense you name a Church it be so taken of the Pope and his Council General which yet you will not evince to be infallible by their authority If they were infallible they must be infallible by the Word of God as to us and then that again is the first ground of Faith and also secondly you will find that many priviledges which you have spoken of as to the Church do not belong to the Church Representative strictly but to all the people of the Church as invisible which as such comes not into this Controversie If then you come again in any discourse keep you within and to the bounds of the question and speak of the authority of the Church in the same sense as to be the ground of Faith Divine in all points or in the same particulars For if you proceed from the Churches being the ground of faith as towards the Scripture to be the Word of God To conclude that therefore it is the ground of faith indefinitely or universally you commit the fallacy à dicto secundum quid as also if you proceed from its being the ground of Faith in points of Controversie to the being the ground of Faith in all things the discourse hath the same fault And yet you say that in your progresse you leave nothing of concernment in my reply unanswered and also that you conclude contradictorily to me Sir Let me here
this is We do not dispute a reverence to Councils but we cannot grant an undisputed reception of whatsoever is delivered by them In such determination we break not the peace but keep Faith for Gods Word So then your fourth Number in your sixt page might have been spared until you had upheld your supposition of construing that of Esay to be meant of the Church All you build thereupon must be ruinous Debile fundamentum fallit opus And besides what is there but repetitions Onely you observe therein another inconvenience in our Cause in that we doe not hold one Infallible Judge on earth which yet in effect you have had before But to view the moment thereof the better let me put what you would have into some form with all ingenuitie thus where there is not one Judge there will not be one Faith but there is one Faith therefore there is but one Judge Now if you will accept this Syllogism for yeare I shall answer to it by distinguishing if you mean in the proposition an Infallible Judge on Earth and such a Faith as is to be understood in the assumption according to the Text Ephes 4.5 then we deny the proposition for Faith there is not to be understood of Faith subjectively but Faith objectively and Faith in regard of the objects thereof may be entire and one though every one doth not hold them for the unity of Faith there depends not upon mens profession but upon coherence with it selfe and the exclusion of any other as towards appointment unto Salvation If you mean Faith otherwise we deny your assumption to be true to the sense of the Text. Whereas you say then that otherwise God had not well provided for the Salvation of men generally if but one of ten thousands without an Infallible Judge might hit the right sense of Scripture We Answer First you see here how your opinion doth miserably betray you to hard thoughts of Scripture and consequently of God in it Is not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvation Is it not given by inspiration Is it not profitable for Doctrine for Conviction for Correction for Instruction in Righteousnesse that the man of God might be absolute being made perfect unto every good work as Saint Paul to Timothy 2 Tim. 3.15 16. what can we desire more of Scripture in regard of sufficiency to its end then that it should be able to make us wise unto Salvation what can we want in it as in regard of the matter of it towards that end when as it is profitable as to those purposes and if there be not all so clear as that every one of the people may discerne the minde of God as towards a particular sense yet the Man of God the Minister of the Gospel by the Study and Learning he hath may be able to be thereby furnished to every good work that he may instruct others Now I think you will not think that Saint Paul by the Man of God here intended the Pope or any one Infallible Judge and therefore your postuâ—gre or an Infallible Judge is unreasonable Any Minister of the Gospel by his abilities is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people unto their happinesse and the Scripture was inspired to this purpose as it appears And what need then of an Infallible Judge It is true every Minister is not able to explicate all difficulties of Scripture no nor all your Popes and Councels neither but in things necessary their knowledge may be sufficient in points of debate there is no necessity of certain knowledge as unto Salvation And this you afterward come to when you take care to save the credit of the Church by a distinction that it cannot teach any damnative error so then it may erre but not teach damnative error The Scripture teacheth all things necessary cannot erre at all why then do we not rest here Therefore take you no more this way of reckoning we have an Infallible Judge therefore we must absolutely hear him But first prove the necessity of a Judge indefinitly and then who it is demonstratively and then we have done In the mean time you are in the perill of Treason not against Gods Judge but against God the Judge in setting up another Judge in the Consciences of men And if the subordinate Judge who is not Infallible goes without a Commission and makes Lawes himselfe is not this Treason So then the subordinate Judge determines by Scripture or not if not then he makes a new Law if he doth determine by Scripture then doth his determination bind by Authority of Scripture where of he is but a Minister And is not the Word by the Spirit of God Judicative What else is said Heb. 4.12 Consider well that Text and see if it may not answer all your objections against Scripture If you say the Word of God is a Dead Letter it cannot speak it is here denyed it is Living if you say that it cannot act it is denyed it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you say that cannot decide Controversies what is said here It is sharper then any two edged Sword It decides all Controversies of Faith and those points of Faith pretended which are not here it doth cut off If you say that cannot reach the Conscience what then can it is piercing even to the dividing of Soul and Spirit Joynts and Marrow If you say it cannot judge it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Critical exactly Judicative of the thoughts and notions of the heart and this is more then any Judge on Earth can do All that Judges on Earth can do in our question is but to declare and apply the decisions of Scripture against Error or Evil practice if they go higher they go above their Sphere And since they may for ought appears by you to the contrary misse of the right determination we use them but as Consuls not as dictators We consult them and then look to the Rule What then it is to submit your interiour Judgement as you speak to any one on Earth I leave it to you to judge since he whosoever he is can oblige assent no otherwise now then by light of Scripture which is the standing and onely rule we have to go by unto happiness And if we go any other way to settle our assent of truth which is to be preferred before unity we shall come no way to faith So you see what is the cause of the chasm betwixt us you cannot come to us because you are bound and captivated by your Infallibility which while you hold it holds you in incapacity of being better advised and we cannot come to you because you hold it It is hard to say which hath destroyed more Souls uncertainty of that Religion which we have in Scripture or Infallibility besides it and yet not so hard for Uncertainty may be helped but Infallibility hath no remedy And now forasmuch as you have not upon firm
and besides that which is beside it as a Rule is against it For if any thing be a Rule besides it then is that not a Rule For a Rule or Canon as it excludes defect so doth it exclude excess and therefore in necessaries to faith and salvation nothing is to be added as in the 22. of the Apocalypse the 18. If any man shall adde hereunto God shall adde unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book After the consignation of the Canon nothing is to be added as he said And your glorious asserting which follows in your Treatise that you onely do truly believe the Scripture because you onely believe it to be the Word of God upon Divine Revelation manifested by Gods Church which as you will shew is infallible is certainly not very sound Because first this is not yet put out of question that the Church is infallible This you would beg and have to be granted unto you therefore you passe the proof of it here and skip from this to the denial of true faith to the Protestants For this Demonstration we must wait your leisure Secondly we deny unto you any reason of this your glory in the belief of Scripture upon this consideration that the Faith of Protestants is more grounded then yours is for whatsoever authority the Church hath towards this perswasion we also make use of as a motive to this Faith and then we do resolve and settle and determine our Faith hereof by the autopistie of the word of God which you say is the infallible Word of God If it be infallible it cannot deceive us Neither can be it be said that we cannot be assured of its infallibility by its self because we cannot be assured of the Authority of the Church but by the Word of God Yea this is the ratio formalis of Divine Faith to believe what he saith to be true because he saith it Therefore must we believe that the Scripture is the Word of God because he saith it And suppose the Church were Infallible yet must we ground and terminate our Faith hereof in Scripture unlesse it did otherwise appear Infallibly to be so or else we are in everlasting motion to and fro as Why do I believe the Scripture to be the VVord of God because the Church saith it VVhy do I believe the Church because the Scripture beareth witnesse of it How do I know the Scripture saith it because again the Church saith so You must then come to us and our principles if you will have any grounded constitution of Divine Faith we fluctuate and hover up and down like the Dove untill we come to set a sure foot on the ground of Scripture The prime and indemonstrable principle of all Divinity amongst principles complexe must be this that the Scripture is the VVord of God And hereupon that which you say in your eighth page That it is no where written in Scripture that such and such Books of Scripture be Canonical and the undoubted VVord of God c. makes no prejudice against us and yet that which is quoted in Scripture from any other book under such a name is upon this consideration Canonical for they are worthy to be believed for themselves As we assent unto prime principles in the habit of intelligence by their own light so do we assent unto Scripture to be the VVord of God through the help of the Spirit of God do we see the Scripture to be the VVord of God as by its own light Therefore hath Faith more proportion to Intelligence then to Science since we see no reason to believe but by the credibility of the object which hath upon it impressed the Authority of God And this in effect even Aristotle did see in his Rhetoricks when he speaks of that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is either by Humane Testimony or by Divine in the latter whereof that which makes the Faith is the Testimony of God And that testimony of Saint Austin which your Bellarmin produceth against those who were for private Revelations beside Scripture in his first Book De verbo Dei cap. 2. and he takes it out of the 12 of his De Civit. cap. 9. infers as much in these words Scripturae fides mirabilem autoritatem non immeritò habet c. The Faith of the Scripture hath not undeservedly an admirable Authority in the Christian VVorld and in all Nations which amongst other things that it spoke it did by a true Divinity foretell would believe it It hath an admirable Authority not undeservedly mark that not from the Christian world but in the Christian world and in all Nations which it did foretell would believe it not the Church for they that were the Church were to believe it first it did foretell by a true Divinity if then we would use a scientifical argument and intrinsecal from the Scripture it should be this that what it hath foretold is come certainly to passe and what is come to passe in the belief of it it did foretell The humane Faith then such as that whereby we believe Cicero's or Virgils books is indeed yours for you are they who have no other then humane grounds and consequently an humane Faith if your Faith doth rest upon the authority of Man VVhat you have more to say to this out of the virtue of General Councils you refer me to in the 19 Number but all the light they give comes from the Sanctuary of Scripture and therefore what Light you have must be more then Mans. In the middle of your eighth page you say you have a second convincing Argument it is easily denyed to be a second convincing Argument for it cannot be a second convincing Argument untill the first proves so But the summe of this Argument is drawn from our uncertainty of the knowledge of the Scripture to be the VVord of God by our translations since the Scriptures were written in Ebrew and Greek which one of ten thousand doth not perfectly understand But do you not consider that this Argument will rebound with more force against you for you have nothing at all for your belief but the Authority of the Church in your Translation Latin Yea the people must have no knowledge at all by any Translation which they understand therefore their Faith upon this account is lesse Divine because they have no understanding of Scripture by any Interpretation Secondly The Translations are the VVord of God not absolutely but so far as they agree with the Originals and therefore by them we do not ground our Faith as such but we ground our Faith upon that which is translated to be the VVord of God because God by his Spirit perswadeth us of it therefore the Fallibility of Translation doth not destroy our Faith for we do not build it upon a Translation but this you do you rely upon your Latin Translation Session the 4. as Bel. in the 30. B. De verbo Dei c. 9.
which by the Trent Councel was Christened Authentique before it was born You make that to be the Scripture by which you must decide Controversies then you decide Controversies by Scripture And hath that no faults in it Is it every word Infallibly done If Infallibly done at first why did Clement the eighth vary from Sixtus quintus and why doth Isidor Clarius vary from him in thousands of places And do you any where find in Scripture that this Interpretation is made Canonical And are there none that find great fault with this Latin one If you will look into your Bellarmine in his third Book De verbo Dei 10. Chapter you may finde the contrary and although it goes under the account of an antient Edition and Hieronis yet in the Chapter before you may see he findes adversary objections and you may find by his confession that all is not his VVhat need then Sixtus Quintus have made it up And is not your Rhemish Testament very faultie Will you undertake to make it all good against Fulk And if you say that you may be certain of your Latin by the Church which you will prove to be infallible until you do prove it you doe again commit the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This should have been made irrefragably sure at first by Achillean invincible arguments and then we should have fallen down before you But again you tell us you will do it and presently fly at us for our Opinion Is there not one of yours who is prettily in his Opposition against Bishop Andrewes about the Popes temporal power compared to the pulex Qui cessim fugit fugit recessìm Et subsultibus hinc hinc citatis Vibrat cruscula And is there no more do so In some lines following of your Treatise we have nothing but petitions or repetitions and we answer no more till you prove more then this no man ever erred by following Scripture sincerely which you grant to be the infallible Word of God If they erred they erred from Scripture not by it But fools may be made wise by Scripture and wise men may erre by your Church until you make it infallible Nullibi pronior fidei lapsus quam ubi rei falsae gravis autor extitit as he said If they may teach that which is false wise men may also be deceived if they be not infallible they may teach that which is false But in the eighth line of the ninth page you oppose to me Saint Austins authoritie and of all the greatest Doctors which ever the Church had that they professed themselves unable to understand the Scriptures and that after many years study and how then c. We easily answer Saint Austin doth not say that the Scripture is absolutely and universally in all places so difficult that we may not get out from thence that which will direct us to Heaven for then he should contradict himself Doth he not say in his 4 th chapter of the 2. Book Dê Doct. Christ That there are some things indeed difficult but the obscurity is profitable to tame our pride by labour and to bring back our understanding from loathing cui facile investigata plerumque vilescum as he saith And fully again in in his 10 th Tome De verbis Apostoli Serm. the 13 th Verbi Dei altitudo c. The sublimitie of the Word of God doth exercise our study doth not deny to be understood If all were shut up there would be nothing whereby that which is obscure would be revealed Again if all were covered there would not be from whence the soul should receive nourishment and might have strength to knock at that which is shut Therefore your fallacie is à dicto secundum quid if from hence you would conclude all to be difficult yea so you would contradict Saint Peter who saith of Saint Pauls Epistles that somethings of them are hard to be understood not all Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam as the Rule is Yea you would contradict your self who say more then once that those things which are plain in Scripture you believe by the authority of Scripture But if from the asserting of some things difficult you would onely conclude that this cannot be the judge in Controversies as you seem to intend in your conclusion we say plainly this difficulty in some things of Scripture doth not inferre the necessity of an infallible Judge on earth your premisses do not conclude this and we allow unto you the use of Judges on earth although they be not infallible As Judges in civil Causes may and do sometimes erre yet is there use of them so also is there of Ecclesiastical Judges though not incapable of errour and again there is no peril of damnation on either side soberly held in points of Question and therefore the Scripture yet may be the way so direct that fools cannot erre in matters of necessary faith and practice And fourthly a General Council is the highest you can goe in humane Authoritie and yet this doth not binde unto Faith because it is not free from errour To which purpose believe Saint Austin if you will stand to his judgement in his third book against Maximinus Bish of the Arrians the fourteenth chapter Sed nunc nac ego Nicenum c. But now neither ought I produce the Nicene Council nor you that of Ariminum as boasting thereof neither am I held under the authority of this nor you of the other Let matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason be debated by Authorities of Scriptures not proper witnesses to any but common to both So he Where you see he prefers the authorities of Scripture before Councils which are proved not infallible even here because one was for the Arrians Here is Council against Council as there hath been Pope against Pope In this case what will you do which must you submit to Is one infallible contrary to another infallible If you must submit to both you submit to errour if to one why not to the other if that be infallible And this also will include uncertainty of all humane definitions about the Canon of Scripture which hath been spoken to before We come now to your second Reason in your eighth Number That you say comes into this Enthymene Many Controversies there are and may be yet very many more most neerly concerning the necessary means to salvation which can never be ended and undoubtedly decided by judgement and sentence of the Scriptures therefore the Scripture is not the Judge We answer to the Antecedent in those termes I deny it in both the branches if you mean by those things nearly concerning the necessary means to salvation such things as are indeed necessary to salvation otherwise you go upon a false supposition that there is a necessitie of a Judge on earth undoubtedly to decide that which is not necessarie Therefore chuse you which you will hold to if you mean those
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
whereas there is but one sense of Scripture principally intended which is expressed sometimes properly sometimes improperly As for the mystical Divinity you know it is not argumentative but where it is declared in Scripture And as for the setting out of things Spiritual in way of Translation from things Temporal you may consider it is necessary if you will believe your Angelical Doctor because since our Knowledge comes here by sense we cannot for this state understand them but by compare to things of sense so that there must upon this account be Metaphors and what are Allegories but Metaphors continued And as for the Tropological sense which respects institution of life that is not difficultly found in more clear precepts Again if by impropriety of speech we should conclude an absolute need of an Infallible Judge then how should we Infallibly be guided by the opinion of the Fathers since so many of them especially Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen who were of the antientest of them are so full of this obscurity And as for your Objection that both Precepts and Councils are delivered in the Mood Imperative you cannot reasonably conceive that we should be so ignorant and credulous as to think that we should swallow down without chewing this your supposition that there are Counsells of Perfection above things of Command for when we have done all we must say that we are unprofitable Servants we have done what we ought to do St. Luke the 17. and 10. Unprofitable not onely to God as your men distinguish but also unprofitable to our selves because we have done but our duty if we did as much as we could which none does and yet if we did as much as we could we should not do so much as we should since the Commands of God are given to us according to the tenour of our ability in Adam which we lost by our own fault Our obedience therefore by it selfe cannot be profitable Another default you will finde or make in Scripture that it doth no where set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals But do you think in earnest that this is a cogent argument for your cause The Scripture doth not set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals therefore it is not to be the Judge of Controversies To your Antecedent we say that the Scripture doth give us every particular point which is necessary to be believed although it doth not give out the Number thereof formall and material how many and which they are Secondly It doth not onely afford that which is simply necessary but doth furnish us with many other particulars so that it is an abundant directory for our use And therefore is there no defect of Wisdome in this Law-maker when he gives us such a Law that Infallibly contains all necessaries and more and when those necessaries are not onely plainly delivered but also what is not plainly delivered is thereby signified not to be necessary Thirdly Again we admit humane dijudications of doubts emergent in some points and they have their use with us without Infallibility Fourthly Either the Scripture yet notwithstanding this is it whereby we must be determined in points of Religion or else the Church but the Church by the same argument is not the Judge because it doth not define whatsoever may be necessary to be held by a full Catholique in your sense Whether the Pope hath Temporal power or not is not this necessary to be determined if it be determined how came your Heart to deny it then whether he hath power Temporal directly as the Canonists or indirectly as others is this determined then how came Bellarmin to go against his Conscience on one side or other for he varied herein as your Widdrington speaks of him And Widdrington he is another against his power in his Apology for the right and Soveraignty of temporal Princes And why is not the question decided whether the Pope be Superiour to a Council in things Ecclesiasticall which the Sorbonists deny Are not there high points which are of weight to move an Infallible Conclusion Not to speak of Gods predetermination or whether the Virgin Mary was Conceived without Original sin How is then the Church the Infallible Judge of Controversies If you say that the Church determines as much as is necessary well then and so hath the Scripture which you acknowledge is Infallible but are not the former points necessary what can you instance in which is more necessary and not determined in Scripture If our Salvation as you hold be in jeopardy for not submitting to the Infallible Judge what can be of more concernment then to know Infallibly who he is and what power he hath which yet your prudent Religion will never make a determination of After this you taxe our Doctrine to be contrary to Scripture and first in the matter of Extream Unction by Saint James We say if you say right that it is clear against us by Scripture then the Scripture hath decided this question then the Scripture can judge and end Controversies And yet at the beginning hereof you speak very warily and discreetly it seems If by this term you would have us believe that it is not evidently declared against us in Scripture then we need say no more as to this case If it be manifest by Scripture against us and you mean your word seems as Aristotle and others use it in way of Elegance or of course then it doth not abate the tenure of the affirmative and then what need we any other Judge so are you held by this Dilemma Secondly That command of Saint James imports no Sacrament as you would have it but doth relate to the gift of Healing in those times Another example of our difference from Scripture you presse the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be in our sense We answer first You say the words of Institution are clear in this Sacrament in which any wise Man would speak clearly and yet afterwards you say this Controversie the Scripture doth not decide How far are these from a contradiction if clear then either is decided or needs none but it is for your turn that it should be clear and not decided clear against us not decided for you VVell here again you incur the former inconvenience which I will let passe Secondly The words indeed are clear for the nature of a Sacrament which under a visible signe represents a spiritual thing and so therefore for the condition of a Sacrament any wise man could not speak more conveniently then in a figurative sense because it is symbolical to the Sacrament For if the real presence as you mean be corporal then is the property of the Sacrament destroyed because the signe is turned into that which is signified And you are in more capacity to yeild a figurative sense here because elsewhere you do object too much of it and here too little Indeed if Scripture had no other handling but yours it would after it more need an Infallible
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
arising from time to time and who can hear Me and You and be heard by Me and You that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we doubt we can propose our doubt and she will tell us clearly her meaning whereas the Bible c. cannot do so This hath in it somewhat new your discourse in brief may be under this forme That which can hear you and me and be heard by you and me and resolve doubts of its meaning is the Judge the Church can do thus the Scripture not therefore the Church is the Judge and not the Scripture We easily answer If you understand the proposition of a formall Judge so we grant it and do not say the Scripture is the Judge but if you mean it so that nothing can be in any Kind a Judge but that which doth so we deny it and your assumption too for the Law is in its kind the Judge and so may the Scripture be as I have shewed before in this paper And unless the Ecclesiastick Judges whereof we do not reject a lawfull and good use doe rightly declare Scripture in the application of it to particular Causes wherein the authority of the Church as some of your men will sometimes say doth consist I cannot possibly hold my self bound in Conscience to yield my judgement therunto So then secondly unlesse you put into the premisses that that which heareth you and me and is heard by you and me is the infallible Judge and then that the Church doth so your discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for so we grant all as to the Church for this may stand with our cause but if you do put in infallibility we deny both the one and the other Preposition Thirdly by this Argument you exclude Tradition from being the Judge for doth that hear you and me Is that heard by you and me but you say the Church doth determine hereby then may it determine by Scripture more securely and more universally Fourthly is not the Heretique Saint Paul speaks of in his third chapter to Titus the 10.11 verses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himself or of himself how that not by principles of natural Knowledge for Theologie is supernatural and therefore needed a Revelation of it from God you know not by a Revelation immediate Extra Scripturam for then how should he be condemned of himself Not by any definition of the Church which was not then sufficiently formed thereunto no nor yet by Titus because then as before he had not been condemned by himself then he was condemned by himself because he had in him the Principles of the Word of God which he gainsaid by his contrary Error So that it remains he was condemned by the Law of God And therefore that can judge you and me not externally and by voice but internally by vertue of Conscience which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemning of Errors in us so that this Scripture it is or the Word of God which passeth Sentence in the interiour judgement as you speak and this absolves some who in the outward Courts are condemned and condemneth some who in the outward Court are not condemned And therefore it is not only lawful but necessary for us sometimes to dissent in our judgement because they may erre in their dijudication And as much your own reason suggests in your 21. Number wherein you acknowledge it to be necessary that there should be infallibilitie in the Judge of faith And then you would state or estate this infallibility of the Church of Christ thus that a Pope defining with a Lawful Generall Councill cannot erre For it is no necessary article of faith to believe that the Pope or Head of the Church cannot Erre when he defineth without a Generall Councill So you Alas Sir what Cautions do you stand in need of in this grand and capital and Comprehensive Controversie which affords me Liberty to think that that is not the ground of Catholique Faith which is intricated with so many windings and guarded with such accurateness of Cautions that render it very suspicious and therefore not to be plain and a direct way so that fools cannot erre for who can be certain by a Divine Faith of the Lawfullness and regularitie of your Pope in his Creation and when there was Pope against Pope who of the people could distinguish the right And this is now possible because then in facto And who then could decide the question for the infallible judge you say is your Pope with a Council Which of them could then determine it and in his own cause Or could your Council determine it without a Pope but I hope your infallible determination could not be without the Head of the Church And who according to your Doctrine should call the Council for you say that power is vested in the Pope Well suppose no doubt of the legalitie of the Pope how shall we by a Divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulness and Generality of a Councill for you know Ecclesiastical History is full of instances of Councils which were called by the Emperours and not by Popes to whom you say it doth of due belong to call Councils else they are not lawful And how shall we know whether every one of the Council hath a free Election to it and a free decisive vote in it How much of faction may be looked for in a Councill when there is so much in the Election of a Pope such exclusions such bandyings What Council was ever called by a Pope wherein Religion was not made to serve his interest Is not he who hath power of preferring like to domineer in such Consultations And how shall ignorant souls be divinely perswaded that the Council i◠General If it be easie to discern it then had your Tren◠Council great infelicity to be so contradicted by the French Catholiques And how many Bishops in the Trent Council furnished with a Title to overpower them with Votes on the Popes behalf So that he answered well who said about the question which is superiour a Pope or a Council a Pope was like to have the more voyces because he could confer Bishopricks a Council not What clue can a collier have infallibly to guide him through all those Labyrinths Secondly If the infallible Judge of Faith be the Pope with a lawful General Council how was the Church provided for when for so many years there was neither Pope in your sense nor any Council Thirdly If the Pope and the Council do differ about a Question what shall be done in that case yet if the Question be which is superiour to the other the Pope or the Council what shall be joyntly agreed and is not this a main question between the Sorbonists and others Fourthly If the Pope with a lawful General Council be the infallible Judge then how will this be reconciled
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
Catholick authority doth commend both which may be done without infallibility For the commendation doth not ingage the judgement in assent necessary but the authority may ingage the mind to have a good opinion thereof and so may move dispositively to Faith Fifthly Perpende it well that it is said by St. Austin that he was moved by the Catholick Church its authority and that the Catholick authority doth commend both not the Roman authority which now is included or to be included And therefore if you could prove that Saint Austin intended as much as you would have and also that his authority were sufficient to carry the cause for the Catholick Church Yet you can have from hence no more then your part comes to of a particular Catholick Church if indeed you were such And therefore have you upon your shoulders such a labour as all discerning Catholicks would detract or retract namely to make good that whatsoever is said of the Catholick Church in the respects of it should be singularly appropriated to the Roman But of this in your 27 number Whereas you seem to vaunt upon your paraphrase could he more clearly say that if once in one single lye he should find the Churches authority to be fallible he should then have left unto him no infallible ground at all upon which he were to beleeve Scripture So you First I deny your consequence this doth not follow from what you have urged that Saint Austin drives this discourse that if he should find them in a lye he could have no infallible ground to beleeve Scripture It follows well that he could not beleeve Scripture by their authority because they had led unto him But though they did not lie to him they might be fallible for they might purpose that which they thought to be true for errour and therefore for their not lying can we not infer their infallibility And for ought I see he doth not here any way give us to understand that he did think they could not lye to him and therefore he could not conceive them upon this impossibility to be infallible As for that which you think an Argument against me that he could not speak any thing in heat or by slip which he so much inculcates This is nothing effectual for how often do we with fervour endevor to maintain that which once hath by incogitance or passion gone from us Yea it may seem more likely because he doth so much inculcate it because we are so eager to cover our imperfections and especially when we are like to make good use of it against an adversary Secondly what doth he inculcate that which you would have But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they say this is under question and therefore his inculcation is nothing to you if he speak it assertively until you fortifie your supposition But one Marginal note of yours more at the sign of the crosse I find and that is this Had he said that he beleeved this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it by which he discovered it to be Canonical then the Manichaeans might as easily have said that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical So you This is no way moving much lesse cogent For first it proceeds from a Negative which in the kind of it unless from Scripture which is the adaequate rule is of no validity Because he did not say so therefore he did not hold so No connexion Secondly by the same reason I may say he did not hold the authority of the Church to be infallible for then he would have told them so plainly he would have made an end of the dispute without any need of using Scripture Thirdly they were not prepared for this Theological Argument because they did not own the Church And now all things being duely considered I think you have no cause to say that I have not sincerely and fully answered what you have had to say for your self out of that supreme Testimonie of Saint Austin And if you compare that chapter with the chapter you mention in the same Number below namely the fifth against the Epistle of the Manichee with the 14. De util Cred. against the Manichees too you will not or cannot heartily dislike my Answers and therefore need I not distinctly to answer this last since here also he doth not compare the authoritie of the Church with the authoritie of the Scripture which is our main question but he compares with the authoritie of those few those turbulent those new men as he speaks who were not like to bring forth any thing which any without doubt might not think not worthy of authoritie the authoritie of the Church as to the beleeving of Christ where also he said that he was moved by the authoritie of the Catholicks Quorum autoritate commotus Christum aliquid utile praecepisse jam credidi Whereby you shall if you will see the reasonablenesse of the former criticism because here he said jam credidi so that it must refer to to him as a Manichee And therefore can you not with Saint Austin beleeve the whole Scripture to be the Word of God from the beginning to the ending as upon infallible authority of the Church because if he did yet cannot you do it which is not to be done and if it be to be done because he did it then it is not to be done because he did it not And I hope those strange stories and those several points which you speak to be in Scripture may be more like to be beleeved upon the authority of the Scripture then upon the authority of the Church since the Church hath no authority but from Scripture not as a Church And therefore if you have no other infallible ground for prayers to Saints and prayer for the dead in your sense and other like points then you have proved he went upon as towards the believing of Scripture you have none Nay you have not so good authority for those and such like points as he had for the belief of the Scripture for besides the difference of the matter he had Catholick authority for his belief though the authority was not Infallible but you have not Catholick authority for your points though fallible But I observe your wisdome You would justifie your points here by Infallibility which you think may be more likely then to justifie your Infallibility by your points of difference Therefore your conditional postulate might have been spared untill the condition be proved If Saint Austin had done so as you suppose then you or your Church would have been more excused from singularity because you had followed him As for you you need not fear singularity You provide against that in your opinion or your Masters for you for you must follow the Church without examination of what they say Their word must be taken but yet your Church may be accused
the not being a rule upon this account the traditions and the testimonies of the Fathers cannot be a rule because they have been abused Thirdly We do not intend the use of the judgement of discretion to rest in that upon an interpretation nor do we oppose it to the authoritie of the Church but we say this must be satisfied in Articles and matters of Faith notwithstanding the decisions of the Church by consonance thereof to Scripture otherwise it cannot give the assent of Divine Faith Every one must be perswaded in his own mind although he doth not make his own sense This private judgement should neither be blind nor heady it respects authoritie but joyneth only with appearance of the Word of God That which you say to the seventh answer was examined before That which you say to the eighth answer will not serve to save you from differing from your self which indeed if it were in way of retractation would not be reprehensible as Saint Austin speaks in the Preface of his Retractations Neque enim nisi imprudens c. for neither will any but an unwise man reprehend me because I reprehend my errours But if you have a mind to see the difference betwixt you and you you may thus Before you said that the ground of believing is the authoritie of the Church since you have said in your second paper that it is the authoritie of God revealing If there be no difference why do you not keep your terms as a Disputant should do But you say your reply is exceeding easie the ground of our faith is God revealing and God revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word So you Now then if you make the authoritie of God revealing to be the ground and cause of faith then it is not the authoritie of the Church because although God doth reveal by his Church yet is not the authoritie of the Church the ground of faith but Gods authoritie for the Church is but as a Messenger or Ambassadour which we do not believe for himself but for his Letters of Credence from his Master and so is it the authoritie of Gods revealing which is the ground of faith And this is made out by that you say to compound your variance You say the ground of our faith is God revealing and Gods revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word then the authoritie is his whereby we believe and not the authoritie of the Church which is but Miniâ—terial And by your own argument are you undone for if the Church be the ground of faith and not the Scripture because by the Church we believe such and such books to be Canonical as you have said before and also here below in this Reply to my eight Answer then also the Authoritie of the Church is not the ground of faith because we must first believe Gods authoritie revealing it to his Church before we believe the Church But also to take notice of that Argument of yours here it is false For we must first believe the authoritie of Scripture before we can believe any authoritie of the Church For the Church as such hath all from Scripture as I have shewed And therefore by your own argument are you undone again for if that be the ground of faith which is first then the Scripture not the Church and therefore the Church may be disputed not the Scripture which we do understand by way of Intelligence through a supernatural light and cannot demonstrate as we may the Church by principles of Scripture Again you seem to differ from your self because now you hold that the Church is the ground of our faith in all particulars causally because by it we believe the Scripture but before the faith of a Catholick which you mean generally must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it so your first paper in terminis terminantibus But now when we believe the Scripture by the Church we may believe that which is plain in it by it self because it saith it not because the Church saith it Do not you now somewhat yield not to me but to truth Truth will be too hard for any one that hath not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost and yet also will it be too hard for him though he denies it Consider then what you have said and what you think and judge how the Masters of your Church will answer it at Gods Tribunal for that everlasting cheating of simple souls with the mysterie of implicite faith And that also which you so much repeat that we must receive Canonical books by the Infallible authoritie of the Church is not yet grown beyond the height of a postulate It hath been often denied you upon necessitie and it did not obtain it seems universally in the practice of the Church or else some of your Apocriphal books were not accounted Canonical for Cyrill of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechese where he speaks in part of the Scriptures he accounts not in the number the Maccabees you spoke of nor some others Yea for the reception of books Canonical Saint Jerome gives another reason of embracing but four Gospels in his Preface upon the Comment upon Saint Matthew not because the Church owned no more as you would have Saint Austin to be understood but he doth prove that there are but four by compare of that of Ezekiel with that of the Apocalypse about the foure beasts which doe represent as he interprets their meaning the four Evangelists You go on and say God revealing is alwayes the formall Object of faith Before every thing was to be believed as proposed by the Church because she proposeth it so that the formal Object of things to be believed was as proposed by the Church under that consideration But sometimes God revealeth his mind by Scripture sometimes by the Church as he did two thousand years and more before the Scriptures were written So you Well then now he reveales himself by Scripture contradistinctly to the Church as well as by the Church contradistinctly to Scripture which you put in one behalf of your unwritten word So then we may believe him immediately by Scripture but whether we can believe him immediately by tradition without Scripture wants conviction Neither doe you exhibit a reason of this Opinion by that which follows that for two thousand years and upwards before the Scriptures were written he revealed himself by the Church This as before is not enough to sustain traditional Doctrine because the Scripture in the substance of it was before it was written but you cannot evince that the word not written is as certain to us as the word before it was written was unto them And the Reason may be taken from
hath sufficiently provided for the salvation of man in regard of means of Knowledge without an infallible Judge on Earth because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture And in another place you say what is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary Of this your opinion no proof was given by you untill you come unto this present place Here then I will begin to discusse this Question And first I will take leave to state this Question a little more fully and distinctly 2. Your Assertion then is That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture In this Assertion there be 2 things which need a full and distinct declaration The first is to declare these words Necessary to salvation The second to declare those other words Plainly set down in Scripture 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 Universal Church as it is a communitie Secondly all things which are necessary to all States and Degrees that must needs be in this community Thirdly all things necessary to every single person bound to be of this community As for the first the Church being intended to be a community diffus'd through the whole World and intended for a Perpetuity must by infallible authority be plainly told in what manner she is in all times and places to be provided of lawful Pastors and that with perpetual Succession and what power these Pastors have either in respect of one another or in respect to their particular flocks and what Lawes they may make either single in regard of their flocks or assembled in regard of the whole community and how many to this effect must be assembled who must call their assembly who perside in it when it is to be accounted lawful when an unlawful assembly Whether the Precepts of this assembly oblige under pain of damnation to the keeping for Example of any Feast as Christmasse Ascension or any Fast as the Fast of Lent of Christmasse Eve and to this community it is also necessary to know what publick service may and ought to be imposed upon all and when all are bound to be present at it What Sacraments are to be administred by whom when the people are bound to use them and how often and in what manner and form they must be Administred All these things are necessary to the Chuch as a community 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 all undecidable by Scripture Some of you contend according to Scripture that there must be Bishops with such and such 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 Others answer in the words of your own doctrine What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary But it is not plainly delivered in Scripture that the Church should be governed by Bishops with such and such authoritie That Priests should be Ordained with such and such a Form that none but Priests should have Power to blesse the Bread administer the Sacraments That this Bread must be Wheat-bread or Barley or Oaten or Pease-bread Therefore all these things are signified not to be necessary The same Argument might be made of other such like Controversies which certainly be no lesse necessary then the former to be decided Though according to their Doctrine none of them should be necessary Or if necessary they should be decidable by plain Scripture and then your Doctours could not jarre about them as they doe Some of you will have no words at all necessary to the Administration of Baptisme some will have such kinde of words and others words very different from them in substance Secondly to speak now of such things as are of strict necessity to certain men of certain states and degrees in the Church Your Bishops must know how to ordain Priests and with what form of words or actions Where shall they find this plainly set down in Scripture They must also know whether they can lawfully permit women to baptize at all or baptize in necessitie onely and not out of it 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 Priests must know what kind of Ordination is necessary for their Function what commssion is necessary for their lawful Missions and whether it can be granted by Lay-men or no as also their power to make and administer Sacraments and yet none of these are plainly set down in Scripture and endlesse controversies there be about them 4. Thirdly divers of the former things not set down plainly in Scripture are necessary to be known by all men all being obliged to serve God in a true Church having a lawful succession of true Pastors truly ordain'd themselves and truly ordaining their Priests who must be known to Administer true Sacraments in their true matter and form preaching also the Word of God by lawful Mission It is necessary to the salvation of every man to believe and doe somethings and not to do some other things not plainly set down in Scripture Every one is to believe some things distinctly Now which these things be or how many Scriptures expresse not Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday Every one is bound not to have two wives at one time not also to marry within such and such a degree of consanguinity Where be all these things plainly set down in Scripture Of divers other things we shall yet say more Yet even hence appeareth how many endlesse difficulties these words of yours Necessarie to salvation bring with them 5. Other endlesse difficulties be superadded by those other words Plainly set down in Scripture First to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sence of it I must first know such a book to be the true and undoubted Word of God which as I shall shew Numb 20. cannot be known by Scripture at least by those who can truly swear that they are no more able by the reading of the book of Numbers for example to discover in it any Divine Light shewing it to be true Scripture more then they discover in the books of Judith or Toby shewing them to be true Scripture Secondly they must infallibly shew that this very Verse in which I find this point is not thrust in among other true parts of Scripture or some word changing the sense either thrust in or left out in this Verse and this they must know infallibly Thirdly after all this they must yet further know and that infallibly
a most right Rule yet it is very commonly so crookedly applied that we stand in need of a better security of the interpretation of it in which the very carnel of the Letter doth consist then we have of the interpretation finally stood unto made by the private judgement of our own discretion I know your Answer is that it is accidental to this Rule to be misapplied and that this cannot infringe the authoritie of Scripture It doth not indeed infringe the Authority of Scripture used as God would have it used with due submission to the publick interpretation of his Church Otherwise not for want of infallibilitie in Scripture but by the abundance of fallibility in our private judgements of discretion it followeth that we poor creatures shall be subject to be misled most pittifully without God doth provide us of an infallible interpreter Neither is this to speak more irreverently of Scriptute then Saint Peter spoke of Saint Pauls Epistles Nothing more clear then that the words of Scripture are capable of several senses and when the senses be several it must needs depend upon the inward and most secret intention of God to have had an intention to use these words to such or such a sense onely or to both if he pleased How shall we infallibly know Gods secret intention but by an interpreter having infallible assistance from the same Holy Spirit who assisted those who did write the Scripture Wherefore we cannot but wonder to see how much scope you give to such poor creatures as ignorant men are by thrusting the whole Bible into every mans hands and investing him with so ample a faculty to interpret it without any interior submission to the Church although the interior judgement be the very seat of damnable error or saving Truth that he may follow in his judgement what he shall sincerely judge to be truest In so much that he may in his own interpretation stand out in his judgement against the interpretations of whole General Councils And yet this very self same man is wisely by you sent to the Minister And any Minister of the Gospel say you but I must not say Any General Council is able competently through the Scripture to direct the People to their happiness And the Scripture was inspired to this purpose Happy Ministers Happy people led so securely Only unhappy misled people are we who had rather say The Scripture was inspired that through it General Councils might securely direct the people to their happiness then say with my good adversary any Minister of the Gospel is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people to their happinesse And the Scriptures were inspired to this purpose Doe but allow me this to the Church that it can competently through the Scripture direct the people their happiness and we will not contend with you whether this competent direction to happiness shall be called an infallible direction or no though we think it most certain that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happiness Now because by the way I did say our Church could not erre in damnative errors you conceive me to grant that it may erre in points not damnative No Sir when I said these words I did only take and subsume that which you your selves most commonly grant unto the Church that it cannot erre in damnative matters This alone giveth her a main advantage over any Minister or any private Interpreter This alone giveth a demonstrable reason why we should not follow our own interpretations which may be damnative as those interpretations were which some men made of Saint Pauls Epistles to their own perdition as Saint Peter saith And surely such Interpretations are then likely to be damnative when they are flatly contrary to the Interpretations of the Church What Commission the Church had for her infallibilitie I shall shew in due place And to shew it more fully I will press again your Text and give a second answer unto it by answering the words following which are All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and it is profitable for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction so your Bible reads for instruction in righteousnesse Is it given by Inspiration yes What prove you from hence but that you and yours have a notable Talent in not concluding contradictorily You should conclude thus All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God But all Doctrine given by Inspiration from God containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation Therefore all Scripture contains plainly all things necessary to salvation it doth this taking the word Necessary and the word plainly as I have shewed they must be taken in the beginning of this chapter Well but you will hit of it by and by after three or foure Consequences of no Consequence For you goe thus on Is not all Scripture profitable for Doctrine Yes in a high Degree it teacheth most eminent Vertues and among other Vertues it teacheth most wholesome submission and obedience to the Church and by her all things necessary for salvation And thus the Scripture by her self alone is very profitable But Sir I expected a Contradictory Conclusion Deduce me from these words this Consequence Ergo God intended by the Scriptures alone to teach us with infallibilitie all things necessarie to salvation or all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture still understanding these words as I in the beginning shewed they must be understood Go on Is it not profitable for reproof Yes Sir But where is the contradictorie Conclusion I expected Is it not profitable for correction Yes But I want still this Contradictorie Conclusion Is it not profitable for instruction in Righteousnesse Yes And now all your Powder is spent and you have not hit the marke for I have not yet the Contradictorie Conclusion I so long expected Hear now a true Contradictorie Conclusion against your selfe out of this Text. That which in this Text is said onely to be profitable for these ends is not thereby said to be sufficient even to these ends and yet much lesse sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to Salvation by it self alone But the Scripture in this Text is only said to be profitable to these ends here expressed Therefore it is not hereby said to be sufficient and that by it self alone even to these ends and much less by it self alone sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation plainly setting down what is to be held in all things necessary to Salvation Again for a third answer You cannot say St. Paul spoke these words of the New Testament which for some fourty years after Saint Paul spoke these words was not finished Therefore Saint Paul in this Text doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture whence he is most weakly cited to prove from hence that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation Again when this is proved it is manifest that part of the
proof from the last Text but one for just as that Text so also this saith that that one point of Jesus his being the true Son of God and the Messias might clearly be found in the Scripture How will you inferre Ergo All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture because one thing is plainly set down Every Veritie set down in Scripture is a most sure infallible Veritie But whence have you that every Verity necessary to salvation is set down in the Scripture And yet again where have you that all things necessary to Salvation were then set down plainly in Scripture when Saint Peter spoke these words which he spoke many years before the whole Canon of Scripture was finished But before the whole Canon was finished it was false to say All things necessary to salvation were clearly set down in Scripture Therefore if Saint Peter had said this in this Text he had said that which was false Therefore It is false that Saint Peter said in this Text that all things necessary to salvation were plainly set down in Scripture 14. Your next and last Text is Act. 17. where it is said of the Bereâ—â—s They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures dayly whether those things were so Good Sir whilest this text is now fresh in our minds shew me here any one evident clear syllable which saith the Bereans did search the Scriptures before they believed Saint Paul Nay is it not first said They received the Word with all readinesse of mind to wit they received the Word as many other thousands did whose proceedings you can never prove less laudable then the Bereans upon those Motives which Saint Paul proposed unto them before they searched the Scriptures and being by these motives and instructions well illightned to understand the Scriptures they for their further comfort and confirmation searched the Scriptures dayly to see whether they testified the same point and this one point of our Saviours coming being clearly in Scripture perhaps Saint Paul might bid them search in such and such texts for it Neither hence is it made evident that the Old Testament was thrust into every mans hand of the Bereans but that they deputed their chief Doctours to make this search and that for this one point onely Whence as I said before your consequence from hence is very weak That all points necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture because this one point was so Yea when the Bereans did search the Scriptures no part of the New Testament was written how strangely then do you prove from their search of the Old Scripture to find one point set down clearly that all points necessary to be found are set down plainly now the new Scripture is written 15. Having now examined all the Texts upon which you did ground that main point that all things necessary to decide all controversies are plainly set down in Scripture and having found this point no where plainly set down I from hence plainly conclude that the belief of this point is not plainly necessary And I conclude this by your own words That what is not plainly set down in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary We are not therefore obliged to take the Scripture for our only Judge of controversies for where is this Obligation plainly set down in Scripture And for ought we can yet see there may be many prime controversies no where plainly decided yea or so much as lightly insinuated in Scripture And 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 truths Frivolous is that Objection which saith If it be a point necessary to salvation to believe that the Church is to decide with infallible authority all our controversies we should find this plainly set down in Scripture Because as we have proved all this while all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down in Scripture even such points as might import the ending of all controversies to wit this your grand point All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Yea the Texts which I bring chap. 4. are a hundred times more clear to prove that the Church is to decide all our controversies then that the Scripture by it self alone is to decide them as any man may see by the attentive reading of these my Texts there and your Texts here See there Numb 58. 59 60 61 62 63 64 65. 16. Though it might evidently serve to prove against you That all things necessary to Salvation be not plainly set down in Scripture that this very prime point is not plainly set down in Scripture yet I have already in the beginning of this Chapter brought many other strong proofs to which according to good order I should here add those many more which I am yet to bring But you interpose so many things by the way that I am forced to defer those other arguments Yet that my Reader may know briefly what they are and how many and so read them here if he please I thought good to tell him that I prove yet further many necessary points to Salvation not to be plainly set down in Scripture For we find not there set down evidently First Whether it be damnable to work upon the Sunday see Numb 39. Secondly Whether the King be the head of the Church see Num. 41. Thirdly Which books be the undoubted true Canonical Scriptures see Numb 42. And particularly Whether St. Matthews Gospel be the undoubted word of God Numb 42.46 Fourthly Whether it be clear in your opinion that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Extreme unction see Numb 58. Fiftly Whether also it be clear that Christ doth not give us his true body in the Sacrament Numb 59. Sixthly I shew divers points necessary to Salvation for which you cannot shew evident Scripture As That God the Father is not begotten God the Sonne is begotten and not made And that he is Consubstantial to his Father That God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but doth proceed and that both from the Father and from the Son see Numb 60. Seventhly I presse for an evident Text for Baptizing Infants or bringing them to be baptized when Parents can which you hold necessary for all Parents Numb 61. I might have added that great Question Whether it be necessarie to rebaptize those who be baptized by Hereticks For as Saint Austin saith De Unitate Eccle. c. 22. This is neither openly nor evidently read in Scripture Neither by you nor by me Yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this Question we should make no doubt Mark this thou impugner of the infallibilitie of
profitably enlarge my self then in these things which touch the ground of Faith about which our main Controversie is I say then that our Adversaries do not by Divine Faith believe the Scriptures to be Gods Word For no body can believe this with Divine Faith who doth not ground his assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation But our adversaries do not ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation for they can shew no where the Revelation upon which they believe such and such Books to be Gods Word Shew me for example where God hath revealed that St. Matthewes Gospel is the Word of God shew me also the Revelation for which you believe other Books What say you to this You say That the Canonical Books are worthy to be believed and so is the Book of Toby and Judith as well as these for themselves as we assent unto prime Principles in the habit of Intelligence by their own Light so we doe assent to Scripture to be the Word of God through the help of the Spirit of God as by its own Light And again afterwards The Canonical Bookes why not Toby and Judith bear witnesses of themselves They carry their own light which we may see them by as we see the Sun by its own light Good Sir Have you brought all the infallibility of christian Religion unto this last ground and here left it on the ground to be trampled by Socinians Do you exspect that rational men should believe you when you say in plain English that as the first Principals are so evident of themselves that they need no proof for example That the whole is greater then any part of the whole that if this be equal to that it is equal to whatsoever is equal to that so it is a thing of it self evident that such a book for example Saint Matthewes Gospel is the true and infallible Word and that this is so clear that it needs no other proof but the reading of it to make it manifestly infallible even as the Sun needs no other evidence then his own light to be manifestly known All that you believe you ground upon the Scripture as upon the true Word of God and when you are further pressed to know upon what ground you believe the books of Scripture to be the infallible Word of God you confess in plain tearms that the only infallible ground of this is that this is evident of its own self needing no further proof for the requiring an infallible assent unto it Indeed you have brought your whole Religion to as pitiful a case as your Adversaries could wish it 21. First this ground is accounted a plain foolish ground by your renowned Chillingworth whose book the most learned of both Universities have owned and magnified notwithstanding his scornful Language of this ground of your whole Religion Chillingworth then P. 69. N. 49. answering these words of his Adversary That the Divinitie of a writing cannot be known by it self alone but by some extrinsecal authoritie Replieth thus This you need not prove for no wise man denieth it And Doctor Covel in his defence Art 4. P. 31. It is not the Word of God which doth or possible can assure us that we doe well to think it the Word of God And Master Hooker writeth thus Of things necessary the very chief is to know what Books we are to esteem Holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach So he Eccl. Pol. L. 1. S. 14. P. 86. That which this man whom some call the most learned Protestant amongst the English who put pen to paper that which this man and Dr. Covet holdeth as an impossibility and consequently for a mere Chymera you hold not onely possible but evident and not only evident but as evident as the Suns being seen by his own light and not onely so evident but evident with a sufficient certaintie to ground on infallible assent which is a far higher degree than the certainty we have of our seeing the Sun by his Light which depends upon our fallible sense but this must be an infallible ground or else your faith of this cannot be infallible Yea your own self when you least thought of it when in another place I urged the necessity of a Church to judge all Controversies acknowledge a greater necessity of such a Church to declare by infallible authority which Books be the true Word of God which not then to declare any other point where as if it had been true that this point might as well be seen infallibly by the onely reading of such Books as the Sun is seen by his light there should have been less necessity of such an infallible Declaration for of all unnecessary things no thing would be more unnecessary then another light by which we might see the Sun more clearly 22. Secondly there be many millions who cannot truly and sincerely protest before God and take it upon their salvations that they are wholy unable by the reading these books to come to an infallible assurance that these be Gods Word or to any such assurance as cometh near infallibility Now Sir I pray tell me what means hath God provided to bring these men to this infallible assurance which they are obliged under pain of damnation to have For he shall be damned who doth not infallibly believe the Scripture If you tell me it is impossible that after fervent prayer to God they should still have no infallible knowledge assuring them such and such books are Gods Word I must needs tell you it is impossible for me and as I thinke for any wise man to believe you 23. Thirdly if your opinion of knowing true Scripture by the reading of them were true then let but a Heathen Turk or Jew read the Gospel he must by reading of it see it as clearly to be Gods Word as he must see the Sun by his light And again because all things necessary to salvation be plainly set down in the Word of God as you teach the same Heathen should plainly see all things necessary to salvation warranted him by the undoubted Word of God If this were true it is impossible that thousands should not be yearly converted by this means How cometh it then to pass that the reading of Scriptures alone did never find that concurrence of Gods grace to convert any single man that we could hear of whereas the Preachers of the Church of God have found this concurrence of Gods grace to the conversion of millions 24. Fourthly nothing being to be believed as you teach but Scripture it followeth that the faith by which we believe Scripture to be Gods Word must be the very first ground of all faith upon which all is built and the greatest light of Christian Veritie how incredible a thing then is it that this should be true and that the prime Doctours of the Church in none of their so many writings concerning our faith should never mention this and
that no small glimpse of this light should be observable in the writings of all Antiquitie In which the most observing eyes cannot espy the least glimpse of it Reply I think if the Doctours of the Primitive Church had told the Heathens that they had no better assurance for all the points of their then new faith then the Word of God written and no greater assurance that such and such writings were his undoubted Word then the very reading of those books did give them by a light as evident as the Sun the Heathens would have scoffed at them for saying that which they protested to be so visible and yet none could see it but those who first believe it upon this evidence to them wholly invisible 25. Fifthly I argue thus Take a book which you hold not to be Gods undoubted word The book of Toby for example or Judith and read these books over And then take another book which you hold to be Gods undoubted Word for example the book of Numbers and read that over or rather to end the sooner read over only as many Chapters as be in the book of Toby that is 16. and then I challenge you to tell me if you can as surely you can if it be as cleare as Sun shine in what Chapter Verse or Word any divine rayes and such rayes as are sufficiently observable to produce an infallible assent that such a book is Gods undoubted word which rayes be not to the very full as observable in the same chapter and verse or equivolent word of the book of Toby What would you have us doe with our eyes to keep us from seing how clearly this is impossible for you to doe which notwithstanding should be most easie if your opinion were true or the truth 26. Sixthly if any one verse yea or any one small word especially this litle word Not be left out in any Chapter either through ignorance malice or carelesnes of those writers whose Copies our printed books have followed whom will you be able to make believe that you are so sharp-sighted as to see this omssion by a light sufficient for an infallible beliefe of it onely by the reading these Scriptures 27. Seventhly To prove that true general Councels be fallible you use often to alledge this argument that one true generall Councell directly gainsaith another which if you could prove you should indeed prove that the Councils are fallible But I can prove unto you that one who readeth the same book as well as you and hath the true Spirit of God as well as you if not in a larger measure shall flatly say that Book not to be Gods Word which you without all doubt affirm to be Gods infallible Word This ground then of knowing which is which is not Gods Word grounding contradictory opinions must needs be false as I prove thus Luther a â—an acknowledged by your common consent to have had Gods Spirit did read over the Epistle of Saint James and held it to be an Epistle of straw He did read over the Book of the Apocalips or Revelations and held it not to have been written by an Apostolical Spirit You read over these books and protest so seriously that by the light of them you infalliblely know them to be Gods true Word Your two opinions are flat contradictory and yet they are both grounded upon this ground of reading these books with the Spirit of God Therefore this ground is fallible and consequently cannot ground an infallible faith of this point But you have no other infallible faith of this point but what is grounded on this fallible ground Ergo the faith you have of this point is not an infallible and divine faith but a meer humane perswasion such as we have to believe the works Virgils to have been written by Virgil. But if any desire to have this case put in two Men whom most of the world will more assuredly believe to have had the true Spirit of God and to have had also as cleere-sighted eyes as most men we know in all mankind I will put the case in the two prime Doctours of the Latine Church Saint Hierome and Saint Austin Saint Hierome read over the bookes of the Machabees and could not by the reading of them see them infallibly to be Gods Word St. Austin read these books and held them infallibly to be Gods Word How came these two most sharp-sighted men to see quite contrary to one another by the self same most clear Light as you must say But we deny that either of them did see this Light and that by it onely they did see which were true which false Scriptures But we say they both followed in this point the proposition of the Church which Church in Saint Hieromes time had not clearly proposed the book of Machabees to be Gods word But the third Council of Garthage at which Austin was present declared these Books to be Gods Word and so Saint Austin held thâ—â— Books infallibly to be Gods Word grounding this his belief upon the Declaration of the Council at Carthage which Council saith Canon 47. that it did set down these books for Scripture because we have received from our Fathers that those are to be read in the Church Saint Hierome had not seen this Council of Carthage and because he was used to ground his faith by which he believed such books to be or not be Gods Word upon the Declaration of the Church therefore until he did see that Declaration he could not hold this as infallible which Saint Austin afterwards held infallible because he had seen afterwards that Declaration of the Church This is an excellent proof of our Opinions and disproof of yours which cannot give any kind of reason for their disagreeing in a thing so clear as you say this point is 28. Hence you will see that this Evidence upon which you ground your infallible assent to believe Scripture to be Gods Word and then all the rest for Gods Word believed so ungroundedly is not improperly by you compared to that Evidence by which the first Principles shew themselves to be evidently true as this Principle doth It is impossible that any thing should be so and yet not be so in all the selfsame circumstances For who ever did differ about such a Principle as this is All men see the Evidence of these Principles But none but a few of your sect see the Evidence of what you say Yea they evidently see there is no such evidence to be seen And if you say that we must have a special spirit that is new eyes to see it Then you who have this spirit are all Prophets discovering by private Revelations made to your selves that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover But now when I see all and every one of your belief laying claime to the Sprit assisting them even as farre as infallibility to the hardest of all points I hope no prudent man will thinke
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
away from the words of this Prophesie God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life Luther took all the book away you hold it all Scripture and yet him a Saint You goe on and adde that the Apocalyps and other Books also have been doubted of But do you not mark the more doubt there hath been of them the more evident it is that they most ungroundedly be affirmed by you to carry their own light by which they may be seen as we see the Sun by his own light Again being you neither agree with us in the Canon of the Scripture nor with your own Brethren what reason have you to obtrude a Canon of your own coyning to us for Judge of all Controversies you not agreeing nor knowing how many books make up the true Canon and all agreeing that divers books of the true Canon be quite lost Where shall we find this our Judge Among us after the Church Delaration was notified concerning the receiving of any book for Canonical you will never find it doubted of by any true Catholiques You are mistaken if you think Saint Jerom held the Macchabees not to be Canonical after the definition of the Council of Carthage It was before that Council that he writ what he writ Concerning the rest you adde out of Saint Austin I would say more if you esteemed the Fathers more what you add after that hath already been answered 〈◊〉 14th 〈◊〉 50. In my 14. Num. for a further proof that the Scripture alone cannot decide all controversies I did and do still insist upon this argument that almost all Controversies do arise about the true sense of such or such a Text in Scripture The sense is the kernel the life the Soul of the text misse in this misse in all And yet about this sense greatest wits vastly differ in many points necessary to Salvation and consequently many misse the true sense to their eternall damnation This book of the Scripture by it self alone could never yet end these differences Therefore if God had left us no other means to end our differences but this Book about the true understanding of which all our differences arise he should have no better provided for our unity even in points necessary to Salvation then that Law-maker who should leave his Common-wealth a Book of Laws to end all their Controversies in Law about the meaning of which Book he knew all the cheifest Controversies would still arise This is indeed a repetition of what I said but it is a repetition of what you have not yet answered For against your first answer it is apparent that there is not only a necessity of a judge different from Scripture to declare unto us which books be the true and uncorrupted word of God but there is also a main necessity of such a judge to know the undoubted meaning of Gods undoubted Word about which there be far more controversies in points necessary to Salvation And though in your second answer you tell us that all points necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture yet I have plainly proved the contrary Chap. 3 Num. 200. And my discourse Contrary to your 3. Answer is affectual for in points necessary to Salvation to be believed with divine faith we must have an infallible authority to rely on for that faith which relieth upon a fallible authority cannot be an infallible assent And again if we have not full security of this infallible authority we cannot assent unto it with an assent infallible to which we being obliged by God God also must have furnished us of full security to know this authority to be infallible as I have shewed him to do And yet again that this infallible authority so well secured is invested in the Church appeareth sufficiently by this that the Scriptures not assisting us in the infallible knowledge of their own true sense in points necessary to be believed with infallible faith we must be assisted to this infallible knowledge by som other infallible means for fallible will not do the deed No other infallible means can with any shadow of probability be said given unto us but the infallible authority of the Church Therefore her authority must be infallible as shall at large be proved in the next Chapter and then in the next after that I will shew that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman 51. Again I said that if Christ had intended the Book of Scriptures for the judge of all Controversies the knowledge of this point being so primely necessary must needs be according to your principles evidently set down in Scripture in w◠all points necessary to salvation are as you say evidently set down You pretend here this point to be clear in Scripture but I have largely shewed the contrary and answered your objection And I retort it thus that if God would have us in all controversies guided by the Scripture only he would clearly have said so in these Scripture yea he would have told us the true undoubted Canon of Scripture This is now unknown to you And we are sure diverse parts of this Canon are lost what Scripture tels us we must be judged by only part of Scripture I pray answer this Of my 14th Number 52. Moreover I added that if God would have given us a Book for our Judge he would never have given us for our Judge such a Book as the Scripture is which very often speaketh obscurely sometime so prophetically that most would think it spoke of the present time when it speaketh of the time to come that it speaks of one person for example of David when it speaketh of another for example of Christ and much more I added to this effect that I might be rightly understood when I said that God would never have given us such a book for our Judge My adversarie to avoid this Argument so mangleth the sense that he may make my words sound of a blasphemous disrespect by reporting them as if I should have said If God had intended Scripture for our Judge he would not have given us such a Book as Scriture Which words taken without those particles for our Iudge seem to sound such an imperfect book as Scripture but taken with those particles which purposely were added to make the sense of the writer appear the sense can offend no man capable of sense For what man of understanding would affectionately crie out of disrespect if not of blasphemy against Scripture if he should hear one say if God had intended still the Scripture for sole Judge in all Law Controversies he would never have given us such a Book as the Scripture is for our Iudge Would any sober man let fall such a censure upon such an occasion Is it not manifest that the Scripture may be a Book as perfect as can be for the intent for which God made it and yet not be fit to decide all Controversies by
it self alone it never being intended for that end It is sufficient that this Book provides an infallible means to judge them by sending us to the Church for our Judge They truly disgrace the Scripture who will first make men believe that all necessary Controversies are plainly decided by Scripture alone and that God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them and then when it comes to the trial are not able to shew any Text of Scripture deciding many and most important Controversies for this is in effect to say God performed very unsufficiently what he intended to do by Scripture If what I said gave you any advantage shew it by disproving what I said 53. First you ask how these words are put together so Prophetically that most would think that the Scripture speaketh of the time present when it speaketh of the time to come I answer that it was fit the old Testament should be Prophetical and I intended nothing lesse then to blame Scripture And yet I say that when the Scripture useth such words as signifie to us a veritie present as well as a veritie future we who have nothing but these words to direct us cannot tell infallibly whether God intended by them to speak onely of what was present or of what was to come And so Gods meaning in all these places is obscure unto us And if you can help us to any assured means of knowing infallibly the hidden sense of God utter'd in this māner you shall do more then any of your Doctors ever did Secondly whereas you think it little to the purpose of him who is to shew in how doubtful terms the Scriptures sometimes expresse themselves when they spoke so that you cannot tell whether David speaketh of himself or of Christ your judgement is very different from Candaris that wise judicious man who had charge of all the Treasure of the Queen of Aethiopia Acts 8.27 He read Isaias the clearest of all the Prophets concerning Christ and he read a place as clearly speaking of Christ as most places you can turn unto with all your skill and yet when Philip said to him Understandest thou what thou readest He who was so prudent and so sincere a searcher of the Truth answered How can I except some man should guide me And then he asked of his guide that of which he most doubted I pray thee of whom speaketh the Prophet this of himself or of some other man Had you been there you would have told him he had blamed Scripture as you tell me for the like cause Who doubteth but Prophets should speak prophetically And yet again who doubteth but that this their speaking so makes them to need a Guide an Interpreter 54. I do not think that among your own Clergie or Laitie you are as much esteemed as he who spoke as fully of this point as I did I mean Doctor Ieremy Taylor in his Discourse of the Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 3. where he proveth the uncertaintie of Arguments from Scripture By the many senses of Scripture when the Grammatical sense is found out for there is in very many Scriptures a double sense a Literal and a Spiritual and both these Senses are subdivided For the Literal sense is either Natural or Figurative and the Spiritual sometimes Allegorical sometimes Anagogical sometimes there are divers literal Senses in the same place so he Now it depends upon the secret intention of the Holy Ghost to have used these words in some one onely or two or more of these senses Is there no difficultie think you in finding out so great a secret and that infalliblie as we must do in points necessary to salvation And if you say the sense is alwaies cleared out of some Text or other in such points you say more then you can prove Take for an example these four words This is my Body you must say they are spoken in a Figurative sense and not in their Natural sense shew this in a Figurative sense to be infallibly the true sense by any other clear Text or else you shew not what you say Two hundred several Interpretations have been given of these four words Is this a sign that true sense is easily known and known infallibly Is not this about a point necessarie to salvation 55. To shew further the difficulty there was to know the undoubted meaning of Scripture even in precepts which being precepts are damnably broken I used this argument the Scripture useth the Imperative Mood as well when it counsels as when it commands What infallible means then have we to know what is recommended onely to us as a Counsel or Command as a precept to be kept under pain of damnation Instead of teaching me this means you say you cannot swallow this without chewing because I suppose that there are Counsels of perfection above things of Command whilest you chew this do not you see that your teeth bite Saint Paul who expresly supposeth with me that there be counsels of perfections above things of Command For 1 Cor. 7.25 he saith Concerning Virgins I have no Commandement of our Lord yet I give Counsel And Verse 38. He that giveth his daughter in marriage doth well but he that giveth her not in marriage doth better How doth this agree with your strange Divinity according to which we have done but our duty and what we are obliged to do under a damnable sin when we have done as much as we could Is this true Might not this man have given his daughter in marriage who doth not give her He might have done so and done well according to Saint Paul According to you he is bound to do all that he could do But he could have done better in not giving her to marriage therefore according to you he was bound not to give her under pain of damnation Here I must intreat you to mark the words of the Text you alledge against me Luke 17. So likewise when you have done all those things which are commanded you he saith not which are onely commended by way of Council say we are unprofitable servants we have done what we ought to do to wit by an expresse Precept obliging under damnation In one sense this man who hath not married his daughter may truly say I have done what I ought to do not out of strict Obligation binding under pain of Hell-fire for I might have done well in doing the contrarie but what I ought to do out of more perfect charitie To swallow this Apostolical Doctrine is far easier then to admit into ones mouth those words of yours The Commandements of God are given to us according to the tenour of our abilitie in Adam What evident Text teacheth this I am sure Saint Iohn saith Hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his Commandements He that saith I know him and keepeth not his Commandments is a lyar and the truth is not in him John 2. Therefore since Adams dayes God enabled
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
them and which not For the sense even in necessary matters as I have shewed in the last Chapter is far from being evident Again Tradition doth of its own selfe naturally continue in its full force and vigour after the same things are wrirten as well as it did before as appears by what I just now said of the unwritten traditions by which many men only know France or Spain yea rather the increasing of it by being divulged in writing by most credible and manifold Authors doth very much strengthen this former tradition so far is it from taking any thing from it wherefore God must purposely by a miracle have infringed the course of Nature which no man can say he did if the former Traditions of the Church which before the writing of any Scripture did fully suffice alone to ground an infallible faith of such and such points should grow then to lose their sufficiency in order to the same effect when they were strengthned by so great an authority as that of the Sacred Writers was Hence is confuted the opinion of Protestants teaching the Authority of Traditions to have expired when the whole Canon of the Scripture was finished though not before For which they have no Scripture at all And if they go by reason they are to say Tradition was rather more strengthned yea if they will not say this yet consequently they should say that Tradition revived againe at least in part when some part of the Canon was lost yet you ought not to say that Tradition expired at the finishing of the Canon without it can be shewed that God did expresse this unto the Church so to undeceive those many thousands who had then reason to think that they might securely build their beliefe upon that upon which for about foure thousand yeares so many had untill that day built their faith When Saint Paul or any other Canonical writer preached first that doctrine which afterward he did write did the beliefe of those thousands which was at first sufficiently grounded upon his preaching come to lose its certainty or rather to gain a new degree of certainty when Saint Paul came afterward to write that they must hold the Traditions he had delivered to them 2 Thess 2. 1 Gal. 2. and that though an Angel should come and teach them contrary to what they had received by his Orall Tradition they should account him Anathema And again Have thou a form of sound words which thou hast heard of me 1. Tim. chap. 1. And again chap. 2. the things which thou hast heard he saith not read of me by many witnesses these commend to faithfull men which shall be fit to teach others also Would the writing of such Scriptures make them think any force taken from Traditions or rather make them conceive that Traditions are to be stood upon now more then ever before Again what wise man would put out one light costing him nothing because it will be shining of its own nature unlesse you will needs have it hidden because he hath now another light but so that even with both these lights many of his house-hold will still remain in darkness But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us I would know of you upon what account the Tradition of so Noble a Church as Christs Church is should be of lesse credit or certainty then the Tradition of that farre lesse Noble Church which was in the Law of Nature What meanes had they then given by God to secure their Tradition for the space of 4000. years which we want for the having secured our Traditions for these last 1654. yeares This meanes you can by no means assigne and therefore by all means you must grant the Traditions of this Nobler Church to have been as securely preserved from Corruption for these fewer yeares as those Traditions of a farre lesse Noble Church were preserved without corruption for above 4000 yeares Again the Tradition of Christs primitive Church before the Scriptures were written and sufficiently promulged which Tradition did by an infallible authority recommend all things was to be believed upon her sole authority and so was the Tradition of the first Church before there was any Scripture and therefore by good consequence she in the first place recōmended herauthority to be believed as divine and infallible and all the true believers believed it to be so which they could not have done without God had said so for all divine beliefe resteth upon the saying of God God therefore said by that his Church that her Traditions were infallible for her authority Now if God said this shall we upon your fallible discourse come to say the Church's Traditions are now no longer infallible though God said they were so and never yet expressed the ceasing of their infallibility By this you will see whether my Answer hath helped you or your reply helped me concerning what will follow out of St. Irenaeus 13. For this serves for making good what I said out of St. Irenaeus so farre as he is a witness which a profane author might have been of what hapned so near his times For as for his authority as he is a most grave Father of the Church and a most believing that to be true which he commended to writing as most true I doe not presse it against you Yet because here you thank St. Irenaeus for his testimony and make a shew as if it were for you though you cannot invent the means by which Tradition should have ben conveighed more certainly supposing there had been no Scripture I could not but observe how so soon as you have hugged him you cast him off again with small respect when you say Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely only upon Tradition They might be commended to the doctrine of the Gospel by Tradition and then not believe it for the sake of Tradition How flatly be these your words against St. Irenaeus who clearly declareth all himselfe to tell us upon what ground we must have been obliged to believe though the Apostles had never written any Scriptures at all What saith he if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures must we not have followed that order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose Charges they left the Church to be governed To this order of tradition by the unwritten word many barbarous Nations do assent who have believed in Christ without any writings keeping diligently the ancient Traditions What bringeth he this example of these Barbarous Nations for but to shew that we might with divine faith believe upon the sole account of that very tradition which the Apostles de facto left to those to whom they left the Churches goverment although the Apostles had never written at all at any time He therefore was none of those who would say with you neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations
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
for the dead all inscriptions of graves all wills and testaments all foundations of pious places will testifie this custome farre more strongly then that of Baptisme yea in no one countrey nor in any one age since Christ untill this last following age did ever any one man deny praying for the dead except Aerius counted for this his opinion an Heretick by St. Austin and by St. Epiphanius as you know very well Hence it is made evidently credible to any learned man that this Tradition of baptizing Infants and much more the Tradition of praying for the dead came to us from the Apostles it not being possible for all true believers in so many severall countries and so many severall ages to agree in the profession and daily practice of this truth without they had received these two things joyntly with their first faith else the novelty and the authors of such a novelty would in some time or some place have been made known to posterity for no one mans worke was it no nor no one hundred mens worke to bring all men every where to any such novelty with so unanimous and no where contradicted consent The Ignorant people will have the truth of these Traditions also made evidently credible unto them by the publick unanimous and universal consent of all antient men and all Ancient Monuments and also the like unanimous affirmation of all learned men of any standing who will all and every where profess themselves assured of it by their Learning and certain knowledge of those Traditions proved in the manner I now said This maketh the matter evidently credible to the ignorant Wherefore they should do most imprudently not to believe that these points came from the Apostles and then supposing that they came from them they should do a damnable sin not to believe them Can any rationall man desire a more rational proceeding How many true believers commended in Scripture cannot give so prudent a reason for what they believed How we proceeding thus escape clearly all Circle I told you the last Chapter Numb 31.32 Now as you must grant that our Church submitted unto as infallible presently by her authority decides all controversies so her Traditions once acknowledged as infallible will decide the points questioned The Scripture never so clear can never decide any one controversie untill it be first acknowledged Thus you see the two things which you here desired to see 17. After this I passed to another quality which the Church hath and the Bible hath not though it be a quality primely necessary to decide all controversies whence it appeareth that God intended not the Bible but the Church to be our judge This quality is that the Church is a living judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time and who can heare me and you and be heard by me you so manifestly that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we do doubt we can propose our doubts and she will explicate her meaning Such a living judge as this we must have to put effectually an End to all Controversies that can arise And as for the Bible I have shewed that it doth not decide all points necessary to Salvation the Bible heareth not new Controversies arising as I prove by this clear example An Arrian staâ—â—eth up as really he did and saith that these words of the Scripture These three are one are words added by us to the true Scripture This Controversie and a thousand such like the Bible heareth not the Bible judgeth not for there is not a word of it in all the Bible And though you say you can see true Scripture by its light you shall never get any man to believe that you your selfe do really believe that you see every verse in Scripture by its light No light appeareth so dimm as these words appear to man Three are one Yet besides this light you who reject Church Tradition as fallible you I say have left you no other infallible ground nor any infallible meanes to convince the Arrian untill you hold the Church infallible All other use which you say you make of the Church sufficeth not to ground an infallible assent for when all comes to all you make any private man and consequently every Arrian Cobler as I shewed the last Court of Judicature in giving the finall sentence on which all depends For he must be the last judge who after the Churches judgement must give sentence that she hath or hath not judged against Scripture That you may see my argument is not peccant I will frame both the Premisses and the Conclusion thus Faith being an infallible assent Controversies concerning faith cannot be determined so as to end then effectually but by an infallible living judge who can heare you and me and be heard by you and me But no other then the Church can with any ground be held to be this living judge Therefore She must be held to be this judge I doe not without Reason put in my Premisses the terme of infallible for faith being an infallible assent must needs require an infallible authority to rest upon This Authority she must find in all points to which she is bound to give this assent But she is bound to give this assent to diverse points not proposed clearly in Scripture as I shewed the last Chapter Therefore she is bound to give this assent to diverse of those points onely because they are proposed by the Church to which she could not possibly be bound to give an infallible assent without due assurance of her infallibility 48 You object that the Church Traditions cannot hear you and me I answer that it is the Church who proposeth these Traditions and not the Traditions which are our judge you ask me whither an Heretike be not condemned by himselfe as Saint Paul saith and you interpret his saying so that he must needs be condemned by himselfe for no other reason but because he had in him the principles of the word of God which he gain-said by his contrary error and so he was condemned thereby and therefore that can Judge Sir he is not an Heretike but an infidel who is told by his own Conscience that he gain-saith the Scripture All christians are readier to die then to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture When St. Paul writ 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 ben the infallible judge of Controversies And I wonder you should say the Church at the writing of this by St. Paul was not sufficiently formed which the same St. Paul testifieth to have been formed before his conversion accusing himselfe for having above measure persecuted the Church of God And before his conversion the Number of the disciples was multiplied Act. 6. yea Act. 8. Simon Magus was turned Heretick before St. Paul was turned
which is hard to affirme since we cannot see that there is any such necessity for such assistance And by those words such assistance Your last reply sheweth that you meane assistance extended to Infallibility Sir stand to Scripture and shew out of the Text that he promiseth to be with them securing them from all error in the first age and he promiseth not so much for the second or third age Against your reasons we have our reasons bring against my illimited text another text teaching clearly that my Text ought to be limited to a smaller assistance in other ages then was here promised for the first As for the necessity of the people which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infallibility it was greater in ages remoter from Christ you ask why then be our traditions now equally infallible to those of these times I answer that as it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles was crucified did rise again then it was presently after these things happened yet all these things be as infallibily true now as they were then and as infallilible so I say of Traditions which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty But to go on What if there be no such necessity of such assistance for other ages what Text have you to prove that God must needs give no more then is necessary and cannot promise more and give what he promiseth I know you will say this infallibility in ages after the Scripture was not necessary because the Scriptures alone would serve to decide all controversies Sir did not the Church alone serve to decide all Controversies before the Scripture was written Yes Why then was Scripture thought necessary by you even for this end for which the Church was well provided before Again the old Scripture did it not testifie as much as was necessary that Jesus Christ was the true Messias Yes To what end then was Saint John Baptist sent to testifie this To what end a voyce sent from Heaven to testifie this To what end so many Miracles wrought to testifie this To what end did Christ and his Apostles still further testifie this Mark here how false your judgement is in thinking God will promise just what is necessary and no more Sir in Ages after the first when the Church should grow from a Grain of Mustard-seed to be a Tree of vast extent in such a vast compasse and in progresse of many Ages a world of doubts would rise which Bookes were Scripture which not Which corrupted Scripture which not Which was the undoubted sense of the uncorrupted Scripture which not Why might not Christ for any thing you know by Scripture think this a sufficient Reason to promise an assistance extended to infallibility for other Ages of the Church as well as for the first age Will an authority so assisted to testifie all this infallibly be lesse necessary then so many Authorities to Testifie that Jesus Christ was the true Messias after it was infallibly Testified by true Scripture And all these Testimonies were given to the Jewes as ill as they were disposed How then can you say of the Church of Christ that she for want of this Disposition was deprived of this Assistance in all Ages but the first VVhat you adde of Traditions hath been already Answered See also Number Twelve But what you adde of Scripture having still the same certaintie is apparently false speaking as you speake in Order to assure us For you your selfe confesse that divers Bookes of Scripture as the Apocalyps c. are now held certain which were not held so before Again many and a good many bookes of Scripture are quite lost How know you by Scripture only that no necessary point for practice or beliefe contained in those bookes only did not perish with the bookes themselves And as for the bookes we have you see how uncertain we remain about the true sense of them in highest points Then they had the Apostles themselves or the known Disciples of the Apostles to tell them the meaning of these words This is my Body is this so really or figuratively only These words Baptize all Nations do or do not include Infants To be a Priest or a Bishop was to have power to sacrifice to absolve or was it not Now times make these held for uncertainties whereas by and by you admit that by this promise of Christ the Church is secure from damnable error though not from all simple errors for then no body should be left for God to be withal you admit that which will destroy quite what you said before For before you said Heresie consisted in opposition to clear Scripture whence all those must needs be Hereticks who opposed clear Scripture Therefore all those who held these prime points in which you and we differ with us against you were Hereticks for they held these points which as you say are against clear Scripture But by your own confession Christ had no visible Church baptizing teaching all Nations c. but those who held these prime points in which we and you differ wherefore we must confesse that Christ was with these Opposers of evident Scripture or else you cannot shew with what Members of the Church he was for all these last ages preceding the Reformation Let us go on 30. What kind of assistance Christ promised may be gathered behold a fifth Text out of several words in the 14. chapter of Saint John there verse 15. he saith I will pray the Father and he shall give another Comforter that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive And verse 27. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things and suggest unto you all things whatsoever I shall say unto you And chap. 16. ver 12. I have yet many things to say unto you How be it when the spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth I aske now according to these Texts How long is this spirit of Truth to abide with them in their successours For ever saith the Text. Shall he also secure those with whom he for ever abideth from all errour He will guide you into all Truth saith the Text. Give me then leave lesse to regard what you say to the contrary Where there is all Truth there is no errour If you answer there is no Fundamental errour I Reply that all Truth excludes all errour either in points Fundamental or not Fundamental And being you cannot assuredly tell me which points be Fundamental which not which destructive of salvation which not which be curable which are not you must grant me that she is to be believed in all points And fear not to believe her She will guide you into all Truth Therfore you may securely follow her in all herwaies This promise of Christ made equally to the Apostles and
and privately exhort us to seek out and serve God we are not to dispair that there is some authority appointed by the same God on which authority we relying as on an assured step may be lifted up to God My adversary wil needs read these last words thus On which authority we relying as on an assured step may be lifted up to God Velut gradu incerto innitentes attolluram ad Deum As if an unassured or an uncertain step could help to lift us up to God and were a thing to be relied upon to this end and given us as a help by God to this end that we may rely upon it and we being so well provided of uncertainty in the authority appointed by God for us ought nor to despair of coming by this authority to the certain truth Is not this perfect and compleat non-sense And can you think in earnest that here you have reason to tell me that the scope of St. Austins discourse may discover my corrupting his Text Doth it not evidently discover the corruption of your FrobeniaÌ„ Edition An. 1569. which would needs read Gradu incerto innitentes attellamur ad Deum whereas other Editions read gradu certo innitentes even the Edition of Erasmus whose judgement yours use to esteem most accurate Yea he in the beginning of his Edition professeth to put down such a Note as this is when he varieth from the Frobenian Edition and yet here he putteth no such note in his Paris Edition Anno 1555. which Edition of Erasmus is ancienter then yours So that your Frobenian Edition corruptedly differeth in this place from that ancienter Frobenian Edition of which Erasmus made mention a dozen years before yours was printed Neither can you make any thing like sense of S. Austins words by reading them as you cited them that by the authority appointed by God we should as by an uncertain step be lifted up to God So that here you may easily perceive how little reason you had to carp at infallibility And again you had as litle reason to put me in mind that one part of that authority of which St. Austin here speaketh is drawn from the miracles which Christ did Sir do these miracles make this authority to be relied upon as upon an unassured step or as upon an assured step to lift us up to God Now Sir how shal you ever be able to secure me that you can know and infallibly know corrupted Scripture from uncorrupted when I see this your talent in knowing corruptions so deficient as I have here shewed it to be even when you are so confident of it that you charge your adversary of corruption which had you not done he had now made no use of this place so clear to his purpose But he must needs now expect a better answer from you to this place 37. In my 24. I intreat you not to explicate the places which I had above alledged for the Churches infallibility Of my 24. â—h Number as if they were to be understood so as onely to be true when the Church judgeth conformably to Scripture for even in that sence the devil himselfe father of Lyes is infallible so long as he teacheth conformable to Scripture and the gates of hell cannot by errour prevail against the devil of Hell Yea as long as he doth this he will be the pillar and ground of Truth that is subordinately as you speak of the Church to wit so far as either of them rely on the written word You answer first that we are not commanded but forbidden to consult with the Devil but we are enjoyned to consult with the Church of God I answer that this hinders not his being infallible as long as he speaketh conformably to Scripture And I am glad to see you acknowledge a command to consult with the Church for sure I am that this must be understood of consulting with a visible Church and visible in all Ages For people were in all ages to obey this command of consulting with her But it is impossible in any age to consult with an invisible Church Therefore there was in all ages a true visible Church Secondly you say we have alwayes cause to suspect the Divel I answer this hinders not his being truly infallible so long as he teacheth conformably to Scripture In your third answer you seem to make the divel and the Church agree for you neither believe the divel in point of truth upon his authority nor the Church to speak truth upon her authority wherefore for all you have said as yet the divel may as well be the pillar and ground of truth as the Church though I confesse freely it is not his office to be so Again though you be not moved to think that the divel saith to be true yet this hinders not his speaking as true as the Church doth as long as he speaketh conformable to Scripture And though I grant that you may in some respect make more account of what the Church saith for her authority then of what the devil saith upon his authority yet standing still in our case which supposeth the divel de facto to deliver what is conformable to Scripture you who refuse to give an infallible assent to what the Church saith at all times but when you see that which she saith to be conformable to Scripture you I say must never build this assent as infallible more upon the Church then upon the divel to whose saying you would give an infallible assent when you see that which he saith to be conformable to Scripture But whilst you are so busie in giving so many answers to what I said about the divel you smother up that which clearly overthroweth the reply of you and yours who say we must follow the Church only so far as we see her follow Scripture For I shewed that those who could not see at all how far the Church followed Scripture were bound to follow that Church for the first two thousand yeares of the world which were before all Scripture or before what was known to be the Scripture in substance or before it were known whether there should be any Scripture or no. So how could those many barbarous Nations who never having seen the Scripture did truly believe as S. Ireneus testifies what was taught them by the Church though they could not possibly see how far that which was taught them and that which they believed did agree with the Scripture which they had never seen 38. Your two next paragraphs contend to take from me two of my former texts cited for the infallibility of the Church by expounding those texts not to speak of the visible Church But I have shewed the contrary concerning them both Concerning that out of Daniel I did shew this even now Num. 34. Concerning that out of Esay I shewed it Num. 32. And 33. As for all additional testimonies out of Fathers you know why I resolve to passe them Of my
infallibilitie were guiltie of heresie and bad manners and I instanced in Liberius subscribing against Athanasius So that the way your Church hath doth not free you from these crimes and therefore you do unreasonably urge against your Adversarie inconveniences of his principles which are common to yours And yet you will now complain of me because I am even with you The debate betwixt us upon this point lies thus you faulted our permission of the use of Scripture to the people as the cause or the cause without which heresie and bad manners do not arise I answered in defence of Scripture this not the cause nor the causa sine quae non of them since heresie and bad manners have been in those of your Church in whom your infalibility is placed and therefore have you no cause to take it so ill that I answered you so home All the causality you can pretend of heresie and bad manners by a free use of the Scriptures is through mis-interpretation of them is it not yea is it so then how come those who are infalible to be hereticks and bad You had best take away Scripture from all that so there may be no heresie Well it seems you now begin to bethink your self that heresie and bad life are not the properties of a free use of Scripture as we understand them quarto modo but as consequents or inseparable accidents which are in a larger sense as properties namely as omni sed non soli so I construe your last words if I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresie and bad life c. you must then allow us to tell you that you are somewhat disposed to go hence and to deduct and refute the overboiling expressions of the danger of Scripture as to the people at least as if all the heresies and bad life were to be grounded or charged upon the common liberty of reading Scripture And let me come up a little more closely to you I demand of you Whether you will or dare to say that all those who have had the free use of Scripture have interpreted it in difficult places as they judged fit and therefore were of bad life if not then is it not proprium omni And so for heresie you cannot say that every one who hath freely used Scripture hath interpreted or mis-interpreted it unto heresie for how then could he of your Church say si fides in doctos solos caderet nihil esset occuperius Deo Or did they believe without the use of Scripture by an implicit faith in the Church Did they But this implicit faith implies a contradiction in adjecto for faith supposeth knowledge of what we believe in the object though not in the reason but implicit is divided against knowledge and if you say that it knows the Church which it doth believe it will come to this that all the faith of the people shall be shrunk into one Article of the Church and no matter whether they explicitly believe God or Christ or any thing else will this prove good Divinity Or will good Divinity prove this And besides it is not implicit faith which believes the Church but explicit for they must actually believe the Roman Church to be it unto which salvation is obliged Then reading of the Scriptures is not a cause to all though not all the cause of heresie for some have got salvation by it and therefore were no hereticks unless you will say they might have salvation and be hereticks too If you will say it then why would you perswade our people that there is no salvation for us hereticks Then subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation for although all Christians but you according to your Principles are hereticks yet they may be saved because hereticks may be saved However we may have faith by reading of Scripture and if faith then we are not hereticks by Knots argumentation because he would have heresie destroy all faith But you have reason to say that other ways of heresie there may be besides being conversant in Scripture for you know that hereticks have pleaded Antiquity therefore by your Logick you should not plead it for use and settlement of faith Whereas you say Again had not David who was a Murtherer and an Adulterer had not Solomon who was an Idolater the infalible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing severall parts of the holy Scripture Sir I thank you for helping your weak Adversary for this makes for me and proves for me what I said on behalf of Scripture that heresie and badnesse were accidentall at most to the use of Scripture because those whom you account infallible were guilty thereof You prove now by other examples the possibility thereof The sense of the discourse as to badnesse of life is this If bad manners be competible to those who are accounted infallible then the mis-interpretation of Scripture by the ignorance of the people is not the cause of bad maners but verum prius and now you not denying it to be true of your Pope would confirm it by certain examples in Scripture But I hope you meane to reflect this towards the proof of infalibility to be consistent with a lewd life And therefore I answer to you that I deny not the distinction of infalibility in rebus fidei and not in point of action I deny not the distinction in the notion of it but I deny it in the application of it to the Pope I do acknowledge him in one part of it falible in the latter but you must prove him infalible in the former as David and Solomon was and we have done We are agreed in the Thesis that there may be infalibility of faith where there is lewdness of life but we differ in the Hypothesis as you intend it not that the Pope may not be nought in life but that he is not infalible in defining points of faith or manners But you would avoid the danger of my former answer therefore you say But to prevent this and all that elsewhere you can say against the Pope I in my twenty first number desired you and all to take notice of that which you here quite forget I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige us no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre How then doth the belief or faith of a Church I speake not of private mens private opinions invest infalibility in a person hereticall or bad So then let my answer be put into this forme Liberius the Pope was guilty of heresie and bad manners Liberius was according to you infalible therefore the Subject of infalibility may be an heretick and guiltie of bad manners and consequently heresie and bad life are not to be imputed to the mis-interpretation of Scripture Before you graunted me the Conclusion that heresie and bad life may come in otherwise
of you in this dispute you have first said you knew not what and now you know not what to say Tell us where the originall of infalibilitie lies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surely it doth not become infalibilitie to be so reserved To passe this you tell me in your fourth Par. that I lay to your charge the supposing of the question And I am still of that minde For if you say that as things stand we have no other assurance to ground our faith upon but the Church you do plainly suppose that which is mainly in question and so must do until you prove it And I still say unto you as I did that you do not well consider what you say in saying as things stand as if the rule of faith were a Lisbian rule and might alter upon occasions and as if the Scripture must be accommodated to the use of the Church Yes intellectus currit cum praxi And the Scripture is to follow the Church and not the Church the Scripture would you have it so So it seems by what follows for so you answer that though God might have ordained otherwise yet as things stand the Church is the ground of our faith in all points speaking of the last ground on which we must stand to wit not an humane but Divine ground the pillar and ground of truth And what do you say here more than you said before or more than we can say mutatis mutandis Though God could have ordained otherwise that there should have been a standing Councel or a singular person successively infalible to have proposed and determined all things infalibly yet as things stand the Scripture is the ground of our faith in all points necessary speaking of the last ground on which we must stand not a humane but a Divine ground Wherein are we inferiour to you but that we do not put in all points But we put in all points necessarie And what need more And the Church is not yet proved to determine any thing infalibly the Scripture proposeth all things necessary infalibly And me thinks you should if you please think the Scripture a divine ground rather than the Church To take then your own principle The ground of faith must be Divine The Church is not a ground Divine Therefore no ground The Major is your own The assumption is proved thus The Testimonie of men is Humane The Testimonie of the Church is the Testimonie of men Therefore The first proposition in the ordinary capacity of men is plaine For no effect can exceed the cause And the second proposition is as plaine if the men that are of the Church are considered as private men by your own grounds But these men you say being in the capacitie of a Church are inspired by the Holy Ghost so as they cannot erre in any point True if they be assisted with the Holy Ghost Well but how shall I know what a Church is and whether such men be of the Church and whether such men be assisted with the Holy Ghost Yea whether there be an Holy Ghost All these particulars I must be satisfied in before that I can believe by a Divine faith that what the Church proposeth definitively is true A Church cannot be in the nature of it expressed without a profession of that Religion which directs man to his supernaturall end Now this Religion requires a supernaturall revelation as Aquinas disputes it in the begining of his Sums Then this Religion must be revealed being not naturally intelligible either by principles or works of nature Where and how is this Religion revealed you cannot say by the Church for the question is of the Church And so consequently how is it revealed that such are of the Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost or that there is an Holy Ghost Expedite these questions And again consider that S. Austin and other Fathers have spoken freely of discerning the Church by Scripture whe◠in I am informed what Religion is what a Church which the true Church and that there is a Holy Ghost Again I must believe by a divine faith that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth as you say Well but how shal I come by this divine faith God infuseth it you will say well but doth he infuse it immediately as in respect of Scripture So you must say well then cannot you think that he can infuse faith of the Scripture immediately in respect of the Church Answer me is this faith wrought in me by the credibility of the Church or not if not how If so then the Church is naturally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the testimonie of the Church must be resolved into the testimonie of men extra rationem Ecclesiae then is it of itself but humane Therefore must you come to this that the Testimonie of the Church is infallible by Athoritie of Scripture Well then if so then the Church is not the last ground on which we must stand Nor yet is it the first ground as we take it for a Divine ground which you mean for it is not Divine but by the word of God yea if the Church be the last ground on which we must stand then why do you prove the Authority of the Church by the Authority of Scripture And if you say that you also prove the Scripture to be the word of God by the Church yet not as the last ground but the Church is resolved into the Authoritie of Scripture as the last ground for if the Church hath no being as such but by Scripture in the substance of it then the Church must be ultimately grounded in Scripture for that which is primum in generatione is ultimum in resolutione So a primo ad ultimum the Scripture is the ground of faith And so this will be contrary to what follows in your last that we do not first believe the Church for the Scripture If you speak of a generall motive to believe the Scripture so we may begin with the Church upon the account of credible men as towards humane faith but if you speak of belief as Divine so we cannot first begin with the Church because we must first be assured of the Church by the word of God under the formalitie of Divine faith the word of God must be first in genere credibilium unlesse there were a resultance of a Church out of naturall principles which is not to be said And in your following words you intimate as much as if we might first admit the Scripture to be the word of God and then prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church If we may admit the Scriptures for Gods word first then first the Scriptures may be believed to be the word of God without the authority of the Church which is contrary to what you have said formerly Then secondly the Scripture must be the last ground of faith because as before that which is first in generation is last in resolution And
then thirdly Why do you dispute with us concerning the Authority of Scriptures by the Church since we have admitted the Scriptures for the word of God And therefore should you not urge us to the acknowledgement of Scriptures by the Authoritie of the Church but wholly to the acknowledgement of the Church by the Authority of the Scriptures Paragr 5. In the fifth Par. you say you charge me with abating from my first proposition in which I said Divine faith in all things was caused by the proposall of the Church because now I say that when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture Ans And I cannot yet bate you an ace of my charge For your termes are of a believing indefinitely upon proposall of the Church as if 't were the immediate formall cause of all faith and so severall of your Arguments would prove that the Scripture is not at all our rule but the Church And this your first paper made to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore if you had clearly intended the dispute of this point whether we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the Authoritie of the Church and so consequently or causally all to be believed for the Church you should have made this the state of the main question But now you say when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture And do you not go lesse now Do but compare the quantities of your assertions before all things to be believed upon and for the proposall of the Church now some things may be believed for the Scripture which are plainly contained in it And the Church and the Scripture are in our case opposed so then if first all is to be believed by the Authoritie of the Church and now some things clearly contained may be believed upon Scripture then do you not onely abate but contradict your self in effect for it will come to this all is to be believed upon the proposal of the Church somwhat may be believed not upon the proposal of the Church but of Scripture For when we are assured you say that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are plainly contained in Scripture then we are to believe it upon the account of the word of God And your Church can have no higher Authoritie surely than God's word for it Therefore if you say we are to believe what is plainly contained in Scripture when we are assured by the Church that it is the word of God for the authoritie of the Church then I pray tell me why we should believe the Church if not for the word of God Again to consider these words of yours if we must be assured by infalible Authority of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before we can believe what is plainly contained therein then either one of us must yeild upon the case of the infalibilitie of the Church or else nothing plainly contained in Scripture can be by your opinion believed But you think that some things are plainly set down in Scripture though elsewhere you would conclude as if all things in Scripture were obscure and so you now also abate in this and herein we both agree and we think the Church's Authority is not infalible wherein we differ from you Now which think you in reason should yeild you or we One would think you should yeild rather since we can prove that whatsoever is contained in Scripture is to be believed without the Authoritie of the Church and you cannot prove the Authority of the Church to be plainly contained in Scripture yea must yet believe upon your principles the infalible Authority of the Church before you can believe it though plainly contained in Scripture because you must first be assured by the infalible Authoritie of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before you do believe what is contained in Scripture And again thirdly we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God why may not we then have leave to believe things plainly contained in Scripture Certa sunt in paucis as Tertullian saith We say certain necessary truths are not so many Why are not we then well grounded in Religion surely in your account because we do not go to divine faith by your infalible Church Even as the death of Remus it was ordained by Romulus that whosoever went over the trench at the building of Rome any other than the ordinary way should be put to death so Zâ—n 2. An. because we do not go the ordinarie Roman way to the building of us in our most holy faith we must die for ever As if our faith were not true Divine faith because it is not implicit by the Church Which is as much as to say the obedience of faith is not good because it is not blind And this is as much as to say we do not see because we do not see And therefore fourthly since as hath been shewed the authority of the Church is resolved into Scripture and since you have confessed that we may admit the Scriptures to be the word of God and yet may need to be assured of the Authoritie of the Church your apologie for your self in this paragraph must needs be insufficient In the sixth Par. You begin with taking notice of my character of my self to be one of the slender sons of the Church of England whether so or whether he hath shewed that Treatise of mine to be no demonstration Let the indefferent reader after the due pondering the force of all Arguments determine Sir I dare not alter my small opinion of my self And therefore the consideration of such matters should have dropped from a judicious head into a learned pen. And if your demonstration as you call it be indeed such as doth merit the terme you have proved me to be no better than my word And if I prove it to be no demonstration I do not yet falsifie what I said of my self For I shall impute the cause of it to our cause the weakest hand may defend our cause the strongest cannot defend yours To passe this you go on Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you adde the Scripture is infalible but the Church is not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture Ans But you leave out the scope of this Argumentation and the formalitie of the conclusion You spake of as clear a Demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter I told you it was hard to say who does optimum quod sic Well but then I wished you to put it to the test and to try the debate of it by this rule of wisdome and
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
he constitutes the sense imperially not expounds it rationally and makes his authority antecedent to the sense and not the sense antecedent to their definition but ipso facto this must be the meaning thereof because he saith so Is this a clearing of the Scripture Fifthly it must be clear to me that the Councils have cleared the difficulty otherwise I should deny my assent to the text because it is not clear in the construction and yet should give my assent to the Councils determination and yet this not clear to me neither Now then if they will have us judge of the definition of the Council that so we may determine our assent for we must by judgement conclude the Council clearly to determine the sense in question or else we cannot give any due assent why will they not allow us to judge also of the sense of Scripture that so rationally we may believe it Sixthly as the clarity is wanting as I suppose he means but to some texts so also but to some persons and therefore is there not an absolute need to all of this infallible Judge Yea how many took liberty to suspend their assents to the determinations of the Council of Trent and yet they would have a Council to be binding to others Seventhly is the defect of the degree of claritude negative or privative not privative for that will charge God And so that of Nilus will be true to be sure he that accuseth the Scripture accuseth God but if negative it is no other than God thought fit for his word And do we think that God would require under pain of damnation belief to his word and yet not give unto it competent clearnesse respectively to the points of faith necessary to be believed Eighthly what then must we think as towards their salvation of all those antient Christians for some centuries wherein they had not a Generall Council were they all lost Or had they faith without a Generall Council If the former how do they say the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church And why do they also not dis-acknowledge those times of the Church to have been the purest And were so many of them Martyrs and yet lost But if the latter then also may we have faith without a Generall Council sufficiently to salvation Ninthly the senses of Scripture as to particular points were clear to the Fathers in the Council severally before they gave their suffrages on either part were they not If not how came they to vote for that sense which was right If so then the product of the Councils definition is not it which clears the sense of the Scripture to them and consequently not to us Tenthly and lastly if the Scripture doth not give us clear texts for all points necessary and therefore we must stand to the authority of the Church then also the Church shall not be it upon which we rely as a competent Judge because the Church even in a Council doth not deliver the sense of Scripture so clearely as to end all controversies And this manifestly appears by perusall of the Trent History wherein it frequently occurs that the Decrees and Canons were so framed as to give a liberty of divers senses for more satisfaction and satisfaction to more And this last account in this last particular doth make sufficient reply to what he speaks in the ten next following lines wherein he objects to me the difference of those amongst us to proceed from our acknowledgement of Scripture to be the triall of faith Surely he did not the same day consider the differences at home It is not proper to object that which is common we can retort it mutatis mutandis And we see with our eys those who submit to the authority of the Church as infallible to disagree mainly in these very points which the Synod hath spoken of for one thinketh in his Conscience the Church is to be understood one way another thinketh in his Conscience it is to be understood another way and this other is licensed interpretatively by the Synod to differ even from the greatest authority upon earth as the other thinks because he thinks the Synod hath defined for him And then he may easily have license to differ from another private man and that other private man hath as good ground to differ from the other So our Adversaries incussion of our differences amongst us is patly repercussed upon them and with more weight and edge too because secondly we holding a difference of points by the matter are capable of more excuse for our disagreements in things not fundamentall than they who holding all equally upon the proposall of the Church must needs differ in that which is equally fundamentall because all that is defined by the Church is equally so Yea also he that errs in one point with the Papists according to Mr. Knot 's argument hath faith in none And one of them that differ about the sense of the Council must needs err though it is undetermined which And therefore thirdly would not my Adversaries have been pleased with such an argument from me The Pontificians do disagree therefore their opinion is the cause thereof and if that should be the cause we should all disagree and in all Neither fourthly doe we license any to differ but they take their natural liberty to suspend assent till they see the word of God as well as upon good reasons you move men to chuse your Religion And therefore as to necessaries Scripture is the possible means of Vnion in the interior man in which faith onely doth consist And this Union we are to consider in order to Salvation not the exteriour union which is not so necessary though simply desirable As far as truth will go it must go with it but not further And yet this is now and then mingled in the discourse of my Adversary and very politickly because the Church hath more conjunction with an exteriour union of peace than an interiour of faith What you add of God his sufficiently providing for his Church by Scripture onely is in this sense true that in Scripture we read that we are to hear the Church c. Ans Surely I do not owe in ingenuity any thanks to any Adversary of mine for this that they seem thus to please themselves in a study how to make our opinion tollerable If I do I will soon be out of debt as soon as I can say that their opinion about the Church to be the High way to truth is so far true because it was wont to send us to the Scripture for our rule of faith and manners as hath been shewed Secondly what Council ever determined the sense of that precept goe tell the Church to be understood of a Council as to bind absolutely to the belief of all that they propound And if a Council had not defined this the sense then how shall we know it to be the sense by my Adversary because
13. And you must pardon me if I say that which he had said before But how can I take it for full satisfaction that before I am referred to the third chap. and here we are sent back again to the place from whence he came This if we might say so is plain bo peep He hath my answer there which is yet good The Scriptures thus Profaned and by such interpretations truely discanoned as I may say are rather subject to that effect which St. Pauls Epistles according to St. Peter had with some men i. e. they are subject to be depraved by them to the perdition of their Interpreters But what is this to us And yet will they say because men are subject to deprave the Scripture therefore is Scripture subject to be depraved And after the same manner that the Scriptures may be discanoned by such interpretations so may also the Decrees of the Councils if men have a greater reverence of the Decrees and Canons of Councils than of the Holy Scriptures And if Scripture be discanoned by a false sense then Scripture is canoned by a true and so then by giving a true sense of Scripture the Church should make Scripture which yet is denied by the learnedst Pontificians And also if we must put upon Scripture the corruptions of men as he doth by a fallacy of accident then have we lesse reason to esteem of Scripture by the authority of men Whereby the way you are again to take notice c. unto it was then true To that which he says here we answer again since he will have it so that the act of wresting Scripture is damnative not by the error of the understanding but by the perversenesse of the will whatsoever the matter of that Scripture be whether necessary or not And he does well to conclude for us Consequently these places did not according to your Doctrine contain points necessary to salvation namely because they were hard It is right yet not because they were wrested they did not contain points necessary for points necessary may possibly also be wrested but rather because they were hard to be understood Points hard to be understood are more like to be wrested than points wrested hard to be understood And the perdition follows not upon the ignorance of the things not necessary but upon the depravation of the texts And therefore our allowance of some liberty of Interpretations even in hard points may not easily prove damnable First the liberty is not so much allowed as necessary Secondly the liberty is not damnable but the abuse Thirdly the allowance is not so much to hard points but things plain where the Lamb may wade Fourthly it is necessary that the people should know that which is necessary to be known it is accidentall that they should mis-interpret the text which doth not contain that which is necessary Now shall he be deprived of that which is necessary upon a contingent inconvenience which also if he hath a sober mind cannot betide him Felix periculum in necessariis Sapiens non curat de accidentalibus It was then true which I told you in another place that though the Scripture be a most right rule yet it is very commonly so crookedly applied that we stand in need of a better security of the Interpretation of it in which the very kernell of the letter doth consist than we have of the Interpretation finally stood unto made by the private judgement of our own discretion Ans My Adversary by his fallacy of accident is falling upon another question namely this whether it be not dangerous to let men have the free use of Scripture which although it seems to conclude for him yet doth not punctually conclude against me in the particular point of Controversie namely whether the Srcipture doth plainly deliver things necessary As it is said by some that some Hares when they are hotly hunted will squart before another hare to put the Hunters upon a new chase so he would start as it were another question to put me off from the prosecution of the right question But secondly we will follow this also and we say that he here grants as much as which extensively concludes against him For if the Scripture be a most right rule as he confesseth then are we to be ruled by it Let me ask why did God give us this most right rule what to be laid aside because by some it is crookedly aplied Is this a good consequence Because the authority of the Church hath been urged by Hereticks therefore we should not urge the Authority of the Church Because the Gospel doth harm to some by their corruption therefore we should not have it preached Because Dudithius the Bishop of five Churches said of the Trent Council that the Holy Ghost had nothing to do with the Council and that he was carried in a Carriers Portmantle to Trent and that the Spirit of God which moved upon the waters could not come to Trent because the waters were up therefore we must not make use of Councils for the ending of Controversies Such consequences his argumentation affords let them own these or retract their reasoning Thirdly where shall we have a better security of the Interpretation of it Let them first secure a better security of the Interpretation of it It is true if the Interpretation of a Council be compared with the Interpretation of a private judgement it is probable that the Interpretation of a Council should be better but the question is whether we can have security for faith by the Interpretation of a Council This we deny since Councils may possibly erre in the Interpretations of some texts and particularly the Trent Council did err in some Interpretations as some of the Divines therein have signified And then fourthly he doth freely or inconsiderately mistake our cause in the allowances we give to the private judgement of discretion for we do not say that we should finally stand to our private Interpretation either as to determine others thereby or to prefer our own Interpretation before that publick judgement of a Council but this we say that the sense of Scripture cannot be obtruded to us as to believe it upon their account unlesse we see good reason out of Scripture for it The private judgement of discretion hath not it self in this case as in a contrary competition to the Council but hath it self negatively and is upon the suspense till it sees Gods word for it But he knew my answer as it seems I know your answer is that it is accidentall to this rule to be misapplied and this cannot infringe the authority of Scripture Yes this was in substance my answer before But now it will not serve as my Adversary would perswade me by his distinction It doth not indeed infringe the authority of Scripture useth as God would have it used with due submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church Otherwise c. unto neither Ans He means
private judgement of discretion doth not infringe the authority of the Scripture used as God would have it used but the misapplication of it which he should have spoken to doth infringe the authority of the Scripture so used So we see he did not discourse properly But secondly he seems here to make nothing almost of Scripture unlesse used with due submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church And this also in effect begs the question whether we cannot make use of Scripture well as unto necessaries without submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church and also again it begs the question whether we are bound to stand to no sense of Scripture without submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church Yea thirdly we may also crookedly apply the determinations of the Church as hath been shewed de facto and therefore why doth he argue against the use of Scripture as the rule because it may yet be crookedly applied This argument is to us common with them we can use it against the Church as they use it against Scripture and therefore this cannot determine our particular Controversie Yea fourthly the Scripture which is acknowledged by my Adversary a most right rule is a rule to the Church too is it not If not then have they no Divine authority to shew for the authority of the Church if so then we can make use of Scripture without the authority of the Church because we make use of Scripture for the authority of the Church Omne per accidens reducitur ad aliquid per se So we may make use of Scripture by it self and therefore the authority of Scripture may be infringed without respect to the authority of the Church And therefore all he says comes to nothing unlesse he proves two points First that Scripture needs an infallible Interpreter for things necessary The second this that God doth provide us of an infallible Interpreter with infallible knowledge who it is Neither is this to speak more irreverently of Scripture than St. Peter spoke of St. Paul's Epistles He says the Scripture is a most right rule good He says it is infallible good He says he speaks no more irreverently of it than St. Peter spake of St. Paul's Epistles good Good words and we give good words for his good words But doth St. Peter put in the authority of the publick Interpretation of the Church to be necessary to the right applying of St. Paul's Epistles This did not St. Peter Did he say that St. Paul's Epistles doth not plainly contain any thing necessary to salvation this did not St. Peter Did he say that St. Paul saies in his Epistles that the Church is our infallible Guide and the way so plain that fools◠〈◊〉 err This did not St. Peter Did he sa◠〈◊〉 were so hard to be understood in St. Paul's Epistles This did not St. Peter If they will believe him without the attestation of his successor let them consider what he says in his 2. Ep. 1. ch 19 20 21. ver We have also a more firm word of Prophecy More firm or most firm as sometimes the Comparative for the Superlative More firm surely than the Church which in part is built upon it as St. Paul Whereunto ye doe well that ye take heed as to a light shining in a dark place c. And if a light shining in a dark place then it hath not such need of an infallible Interpreter we see light by itself It is not so dark and obscure as my Adversary would have it for it is a light shining in a dark place And certainly if that a light and shining in a dark place then the whole new Testament is a light so clear and sufficient as that we need not the help of an infallible Judge either to this light or in this light And can it be well immagined that Scripture being not of private exhibition or delivery because Prophecy came not of old time by the will of man but holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost can it be imagined that this should be by the Holy Ghost so obscurely or ambiguously proposed as that we must have necessity of a living Judge to make the sense of it sufficiently plain to salvation If the Holy Ghost can clearly give us the sense as speaking by his Church could he not as plainly give us the sense as when he spake by the Prophets Have we need of another Prophecy and Revelation of the sense But it seems by them God must accomodate the stile of Scripture for the use of the Roman Church and must invelope it in cloudy difficulties that we must go to Rome to see the Sun of Righteousnesse shining there as in Delos without a cloud And this also is enough to answer what follows which is so much out of the way because we cannot find our question in it whether things necessary are plainly contained in Scripture For what is this to it that nothing more clear than that the words of Scripture are capable of severall senses If he means in all Texts he is as easily contradicted nothing more clear than that some words of Scripture are not capable of severall senses If he means of some what is this to the Elench We can say some words are capable of severall senses consistently to this that things necessary are plain And as to his question how shall we infallibly know Gods secret intention in which sense or whether in both he intended them but by an Interpreter having infallible assistance from the same Holy Spirit who assisted those who did write the Scriptures We answer first as before it toucheth not the question unlesse it be applied to words which speak of necessaries to salvation and then we deny it that such texts are so perplexed Secondly some texts we may take in divers senses not contrary Thirdly as he hath not proved to us an infallible Judge so here he doth not prove a need of an infallible Interpreter unlesse he could prove that it is necessary to salvation that we should know the intended sense of every doubtfull passage in Scripture Neither again fourthly for they shall have it toties quoties the definitions of the Councils are some of them ex composito so framed as that we do not clearly see the intention of the Council in what sense or whether in both the words should be taken And must we not then according to my Adversary have another infallible Interpreter of them And if they deliver not the thing clear then another infallible Interpreter of them and if they deliver not the thing clear then another infallible Interpreter of them and so in infinitum And if they say it is not necessary in points of question indubitably to decide in plain terms which part is to be held then we ask why they do not allow a latitude to us since the Council by them is intended for a remedy And therefore need we not again
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
in writing Ans The former is I suppose proved more than they desire And to this we answer first if it be manifest that some part of Scripture is perished he might have told us which otherwise it seems it is not manifest No certain and manifest knowledge of the generall but by some particulars Secondly If any part be lost it is either of the old or of the new Testament if of the old the new hath the same matter as to sufficiency with clearnesse If of the new the old was able to make Timothy wise unto salvation And my Adversary might have known that not onely Mr. Chillingworth affirms that there is enough in one Gospel precisely necessary to salvation but also that their Bellarmin in the former B. and Ch. says that all the utilities of Scripture which here are rehearsed are found in the second Ep. of St. John If any book then be lost which we are not certain of nor they neither because for ought we know not defined by the Church yet by nis opinion namely Bellarmins that which remains may be profitable yea sufficient for those uses without an infallible Judge And again if any book of either Testament or any of both be lost this will redound to the prejudice of the Roman because they account that they onely are the Church and that the Church is the keeper of Divine truth then they have not faithfully preserved the truth of God and therefore if they were infallible in what they doe propose how should we trust them that what is delivered as truth they would keep since through their negligence they have let some book or books of Scripture perish Quis custodiet ipsos custodes But it may be they have kept traditions more faithfully Then surely the books of Scripture were lost with good discretion that it might reflect honor to the integrity of Traditions O sanctas Gentes quibus haec nascuntur in hortis Numina Your second Text to prove this is Heb. 4.12 Here is the text Num. 10. but where is the contradictory conclusion in terminis 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 c. Ans Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is The occasion of this began thus I was to dispute against the Judges authority to bind upon his own account as he might have noted had he pleased My argument was this the Judge determins by Scripture or not If not then he makes a new law and the authority of the Church in proposing Divine truths is immediate by the assistance of the Holy Ghost and not by disquisition which Stapleton denies in the beginning of his sixth generall Controversie if by Scripture then doth his determination bind by authority of Scripture whereof he is but a Minister This my Adversary says not a word unto Then ex abundanti I put this text to him to give him a check in the course of his exceptions against Scripture We do not say that the Scripture is formally a Judge but yet by this text we have so much said as amounts in effect to be a Judge internall by mediation of conscience which is more than their Judge infallible can pretend to And therefore as to the demand of a Contradictory Conclusion from hence I say this text was pertinently produced to that purpose I intended of it which was not that it should be a directory weapon against my Adversary but that it should be of use to cut off their Pleas against Scripture as that it is a dead letter not a living Judge it is living quick that it can do nothing it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it cannot decide controversies it is sharper than any two edged Sword As the law decides cases of right so it decides Controversies of faith And those points of faith pretended which are not contained therein it doth cut off If they say it cannot reach the Conscience What then can It is piercing to the dividing of soul and spirit joints and marrow If they say it cannot judge it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 criticall exactly judicative of the thoughts and notions of the heart But to come to the point he would have me shew that this sharpnesse is in order not onely to decide Controversies but also all necessary Controversies and to do this by it self alone And if not where is then your Contradictory Conclusion Ans It may decide Controversies and not necessary Controversies but if it decide necessary Controversies then to be sure it doth decide Controversies Our question is whether it determins necessary Controversies Yea neither are we bound to dispute the question because we said it not nor are we bound to make it good in their sense In our sense yet it doth sufficiently decide all necessary Controversies because it doth so plainly deliver things of necessary faith that there needs not be any decision of them by any inerrable Judge And then also secondly because if there be any question about necessary points the Scripture is the rule according to which it is to be determined And thirdly it doth in effect examine and judge in the inward man cases of opinion and of action which an externall Judge doth not as such because they are not known to him And in this regard I conceive that the heretick is said as before to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the law of God or of the Spirit of God in the law doth by his own Conscience condemn him in holding a materiall error against his own light Yea let them answer to their own Estius who upon the place saith that the Scripture hath the properties of God attributed to it and because God speaks to us by Scripture and therefore he saith Vt Gladius penetrat et laedit ita sermo Dei intuetur et punit Itaque significatur cognitio non nuda sed qualis est Judicis examinantis et cognoscentis ut puniat As the sword pierceth and woundeth so doth the word of God take notice and punish therefore is signified not a naked knowledge but such as is of a Judge examining and taking cognizance that it may punish Now because that which is not intended sometimes proves better than that which was intended as the rule is Melius est aliquando id quod est per accidens quam id quod est per se therefore may we draw an argument in form from hence thus That which judgeth and infallibly is an infallible Judge The Scripture judgeth so the text and Estius upon it and infallibly as they will confesse then the Scripture is an infallible Judge Now if it be an infallible Judge it is very reasonable that it should be an infallible Judge as to points necessary and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is no necessity of an externall infallible Judge as to determine faith for that is done by it there
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
Yea also so do the Rhemish Translators read it in the Imperative Are they also decived then how shall we be ascertained of the sense of Scripture by Rhemish Interpreters So Ferus also upon the place expounds it to be a direction to the Jews of searching the Scriptures out of a greedinesse to know the truth And again upon the latter words They are they which bear witnesse of me he says that Christ cites no place but speaks in generall tam ut ad quaerendum incitet both that he might incite them to seek And so also Stapleton reads it in his Principia Doctrinalia in the Imperative And also besides not so often do we find a verb of the Indicative mood to begin a sentence But then also fourthly the reason concludes it a duty and the duty concludes a command It concludes a duty thus that which bears witnesse of Christ being in doubt we are bound to search and they bear witnesse of Christ and were then in doubt therefore for that our Saviour should not affirm it but upon their opinion in that he saith for in them ye think to have eternall life is no materiall scruple because the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in other Authors so in Scripture is used by way of elegancie and then our Saviour says himself that they bear witnesse of him and therefore we have in them eternall life Doctrinally And so St. Austin in his 45. serm de verbis Domini says as expounding the place queritis me et non invenietis quare quia non scrutamini Scripturas quae testimonium perhibent de me yee seek me but shall not find me why because you do not search the Scriptures which bear witnesse of me Therefore may we conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is to be taken in the Imperative And therefore his exception that it follows not because they testifie clearly this one point whereof he spake therefore the Scriptures testifie cleerly all that is necessary to be believed in any point of Controversie necessary to salvation that exception falls down before my argument as Dagon before the Ark because it is not only grounded upon this that the Scriptures bear witnesse of him but also in that you think to have in them eternall life And this proposition if there were need we might prove by what was said before that which is able to make us wise unto salvation hath in it eternall life the Scriptures of the old Testament were able to make wise unto salvation therefore they have in them eternall life and by consequent they contain all things necessary to salvation And therefore though this excluded not the hearing of John or Christs Miracles as he would inferr as upon duty yet it excludes them as upon simple necessity to salvation Otherwise those who dyed before Christ and John could not have been saved The force of his ratiocination comes to as much as this as if because one had a great estate he could not live of lesse or as if because he can live of lesse he ought not to follow his calling whereby he may get more This is not the question whether we ought to hear whatsoever God says for this we affirm but this is the question whether it be said because it is necessary or necessary to be heard because it was said the former we deny The necessity was not antecedent to the diction but hearing hath it self to the diction as a necessary consequent So this text is yet good against him Onely he urgeth me with St. Cyrill's opinion of the mood and also Beza's I had thought he would have made no mention any more of any Father of the Church because he says I do not allow infallibility to their testimony It seems their authority must yet be good against us though not for us To Beza's judgement we will oppose quoad hominem the interpretation of the Rhemists and Ferus as before To St. Cyrill's authority we say we can confront it with St. Chrysostom's and yet we do not build upon the mood for the reason binds us Yet because he seems to have his mind turned in better affection to the Fathers it will be reasonable to set down St. Crysostom's words hereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sends them to the Scriptures And again also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And we therefore when we are to fight with Hereticks and are armed against them are strengthned from henee namely from the Scriptures for so it follows in him as a reason for all Scripture is given by inspiration c. Num. 12. Your fourth text is You err not knowing the Scriptures And from hence he demands 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 Ans Indeed he seemed to love rather to baffle his Adversary than to answer him For here again he dislocates my answer that where it was proper it might not be answered and where it is not formally contradictory it may not seem opposite Doth this become men that would lead us the right way by truth to happinesse The citation of this text comes in to give him satisfaction unto his argument that if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge in all Controversies he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly this importing so exceedingly as it doth and yet he hath not done so To this I said we answer Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures in that he saith ye err not knowing the Scriptures and also adding the other text to Timothy All Scripture is given by inspiration and also 2. Ep. Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of Prophecy thus I said and also allowed him the use of externall Judges without necessity of infallibility and also I retorted his argument If Christ had intended the Church should have been the infallible Judge it importing so exceedingly he would have told us so clearly which he hath not done c. Now if all my texts be able to give a full account of our being obliged to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge externall it is enough for me and my purpose to which I used them but he cunningly draws that text from the proper use and shews it here not to be fit for a contradiction to that which formally is another question than that to which it was applyed but let these tricks go I will now take the texts together and from thence conclude contradictorily to the present question Whether all things necessary to salvation be plainly set down in Scripture thus If we be referred to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge then the Scripture doth plainly set down
those texts defended doth sufficiently confirm the Scriptures sufficiency in matter and manner to this end of salvation We do not say that all things necessary to decide all Controversies are plainly set down in it that is not our assertion nor the state of the question betwixt us Our position may be true and yet this false for all things necessary to salvation may be plainly set down in Scripture and yet not all things necessary to decide all Controversies Neither can they maintain this of their Church which they think more fit to decide Controversies than Scripture for then why did not the Trent Council clearly determine on which part many questions should be held But the plainnesse of things necessary is in Scripture sufficient against the necessity of any Controversie as the fulnesse is sufficient against the necessity of Tradition which is their word unwritten And therefore are not we bound by any necessity of our cause to find any Text wherein we are obliged to take the Scripture for our onely Judge of Controversies for the texts before maintained are good to prove us obliged to Scripture for salvation whereunto things necessary are plainely set down If he might have made the state of the question for his own turn my discourse should have been impertinent A ruffling Adversary would have said that he had shifted and shuffled in the change of the question as if we had held that the Scripture did contain all things necessary to decide all Controversies All prime Controversies necessary to salvation if there need be any it doth and that is sufficient for us against them But he thought he had devised a way how this opinion might be made good that the Scripture doth suffice for the deciding of all Controversies thus Yet the Scripture wanteth not that glory of being sufficient to decide all imaginable Controversies because she teacheth us that Christ hath erected a Church built upon a rock the pillar and ground of truth having the Spirit of truth abiding with her to teach her all truth O excellent provision for the honor of Scripture One in the Trent Council as I remember did not like references but would have all done uniformely by the same hand but we must from Scripture referr to the Church And as it is said of Cardinall Bellarmin that being asked a question too difficult said he could not tell how to answer it but he would shew the party one that could and then shewed him the picture of an excellent Divine so the Scripture cannot answer all Controversies but it hath reputation in this that it can shew and doth an infallible Judge of all imaginable Controversies the Church To this first methinks then if it were but for this use the Scripture should be more common to the Laitie because it sheweth so clearly this Judge Secondly let them shew unto us where the Scriptture doth plainly shew unto us this Judge that they may no longer beg the question And Thirdly let them tell us why the Church doth not determin all Controversies as we have said before not imaginable onely but reall Controversies as concerning the Popes power in compare with a Council and concerning his temporall power and concerning the right of Bishops concerning original sin concerning the conception of the Virgin were these determined with satisfaction to all the Members of the Council Fourthly doth the Scripture give the denomination of this Church which is the pillar and ground of all truth that should be the infallible Judge Fifthly if they think the Spirit of truth doth abide with the Church to decide all Controversies by way of an habituall gift then must this Church have more priviledge than the Apostles had for they had the Spirit by way of a transient gift and therefore some particular questions they did not decide by the gift of the Spirit but the Church must have a standing faculty to decide all imaginable Controversies Sixthly may not we as well say this is for the glory of the Church for necessaries to salvation that it sends us to the Scripture which is infallible and clear enough in things of necessary faith This honour the Fathers before the universal Bishop gave to the Scriptures the Romanists now would arrogate it to the Church If they must be brought to a Competition which in ingenuity should carry the honour the Scripture according to the Fathers or the Church according to the Romanists But he thinks according to his principles he is not engaged to finde a plaine Text where this is set down that the Church should decide with infallible authoritie all our Controversies because according to them all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down Answ Then first according to our principles we are not bound to believe it and we must account it no necessary to salvation because it is not plainly set down And how then shall we know it what by its own light or may we know the Church by Scripture and not the infallibility which is the priviledge Secondly How then could he say by Scripture that God hath provided a way so direct that fooles cannot err Thirdly if he confesse that there is not a clear text which sheweth this priviledge of and our duty to the Church then the disputation is at an end for he will not dispute with me from the testimony of the Fathers for causes best known to himself And if he sayes we must be judged by the Church it is the question Fourthly therefore are we in this agreed which is the main point of the question namely that the Scripture doth not plainly set it down that the Church is to decide with infallible authority all our Controversies For if it were plainly set down we also should be bound to believe it as being plainly set downe though it would not therefore be necessary to salvation simply because it is plainly delivered All necessaries are plainly set down according to our opinion but all that is plainly set down is not necessary to salvation ex natura principii And then fifthly if he doubts of this point as to be plainly set down in Scripture then his principles are less capable of certainty than ours for he hath no ground certain of his faith upon the account of the Church because if the Church did ground her infallibility upon her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture she could not by her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture prove that she is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet neither hath the Church or their Church for ought I have read in any of their Councils determined it selfe by Scripture or otherwise infallible to the decision of all imaginable Controversies Nay neither do Bellarmin or Stapleton if I be not mistaken assert the infallibility of the Church in this extent therefore my Adversary in this walks alone Yet he says the texts he will produce hereafter are an hundred times more clear that the Church is to decide all our Controversies than
and consequently hope too Yet we may hope to make his charge nought and our faith good but we need not say any more than what hath been said whereunto he hath said as much as comes to little yet now he diverts hither We must say therefore again that this should not be a question betwixt us how we believe the Scriptures to be the word of God for this is supposed betwixt us as the subject of the question And we say that the sense of this argumentation is to as much purpose as if when we are at London we must go back again because we did not go the new way As to the Assumption then we deny it We do ground our assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation Yea moreover we return him his argument in terms and therefore they have no Divine faith so naturall it is for those to speak most who have a mind to cover their own defects They cannot ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation because they ground it upon the authority of the Church for they must either have an immediate revelation that the Church is infallible or else they must ground it upon the general sum of revealed truth and that is the Scripture for as for Tradition that which is of a particular Church is of no weight as to this businesse and universall Tradition must go upon account of the Church now then if they say that they have a Revelation immediate that the Church is infallible in proposing those books to be Canonical they make that to be of use to them which they deny to us who have as good reason to say that we may as well have an immediate revelation that the Scripture is the word of God but if they ground their faith upon some texts of Scripture which concern the Church then they must believe the Scripture for it self So then either they must come to us or else indeed they have no Divine faith And therefore had he no cause to be offended with that I said that the Canonical books are worthy to be believed for themselves as we assent to prime principles in the habit of Intelligence To this he says in a parenthesis And so is the book of Toby and Judith as well as these But doth he say this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth he not then find fault with the antient Church who did not as hath been shewn give equall reverence to these as to the books Canonical If they be as worthy to be believed as the books Canonical then they erred in not receiving them with equall belief And if they erred then our Adversaries are lost And now as for our assent to the Canonicall books in the manner of assent to prime principles by the help of the Spirit of God they are not like to prosper in the abuse of it First it is to be noted that we are not now to deal with one that denies the Scripture to be the word of God for to an unbeliever hereof we should use other arguments rationally to induce him to a good opinion hereof but when we are demanded by a Christian what is it that grounds our faith of Scripture one would think we might say that we are resolved to a Divine faith hereof by the Spirit of God disposing our assent to them as of themselves worthy to be believed which is the reason of assent to prime principles And therefore secondly we do not say that our assent to the Canonical books is by a naturall light as our assent to prime principles but that our assent is made to them by way of Intelligence through the Spirit the light of the Spirit as to shew us the Scripture to be worthie of belief for it selfe is supernaturall but when that comes we believe it as we do prime principles not by discourse but because it is credible of it self Faith herein bears more proportion to intelligence than to science because we do not in faith use a reason to the act as we do in science And this is intimated in the common reading of that text of the Prophet Si non crediderint non intelligent if they will not believe they shall not understand so then since faith is a supernaturall habit as the School-men the Spirit of God doth infuse it into us as being an habit infused as they speak and this doth dispose us to believe the Scripture to be the word of God as by him indited And one would think that it is a better ground to believe it to be the word of God because he saith so than to believe it because the Church saith so and it is more about because I cannot believe it upon the account of the Church but because God gives testimony of the Church and why cannot we then believe God teste seipso So all the assent we give to them is made upon the veracity of God which is the center in which all lines of Scripture do meet and terminate Therefore might he have spared that which follows Have you brought all the infallibility of Christian Religion unto this last ground to be trampled by the Socinians Ans First I do not see what reason we have to lay the foundation of Religion so as to please the Socinian One who maintained the Protestant cause was prejudiced by suspition of being inclined to Socinianism and I am now found fault with for not providing for their satisfaction in our principles Well but secondly I do not finde that Socinians do abhor this tenure of Scripture And thirdly they to be sure do trample upon the authority of their Church as infallible And therefore this is to be returned home to the Romanist And also upon the former grounds might he have omitted what follows from doe you expect unto all that you believe for although the object is to be believed for it self as a prime principle yet is there not a naturall light for it that comes supernaturally and therefore faith is a supernatural habit But if they would be accounted such rationall men in the faith of Scripture they do deserve from the Socinian a negative reverence by a positive favour to them But again how far is that which I have said different from the determination of Ratisbon in their fourth session Scripturae dicuntur perfectae quoad perfectionem eredibilitatis et exactissimae veritatis The Scriptures are said perfect as in respect of the perfection of credibility and most exact truth And the perfection of credibility belongs to the first principles which are indemonstrable And as those principles have themselves immobiliter unto Sciences as Aquinas so the Scriptures have themselves unto Divinity Here we must rest And if every one doth not believe them to be the word of God upon this account this doth not derogate from the credibility of the object thus we say that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God is evident of its own self needing no further proof for the requiring
with him in kind it is said in Eusebius that for some time in the Church some books were doubted of now let me ask how came the Christians afterwards to be assured of those books to be also Canonicall Not by the former Church for they doubted thereof not by the latter Church that was impossible How then came the Christians first to be perswaded of those books to be also authentick If it be said by the present Church we suppose a time before the Church then was thereof assured Yea if it be said that private Christians were therein resolved by a Council we say that some were assured of books before doubted of before there was any General Council Yea how came those of the Council upon the supposition to be so determined of them It will be said by them that they were assured by the Spirit of God then as Stapleton's argument is since there is one formal reason of faith the last resolution must be by the Spirit Num. 24. In the twenty fourth number he argues against me thus that if my opinion were true then let but an Heathen or Turk or Jew read the Gospell he must by reading of it see it as clearly to be Gods word as he might see the Sun by his light Ans If they must be answered toties quoties we say they suppose that which is not to be supposed that we say the Scripture may be seen by its own light naturally We say not so Supernaturall objects are not seen by natural faculty for then what needed the testimony of their Church The object is fair were the faculty fit The Spirit of God doth not relate to the object directly but to the faculty enlightning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle in his Metaphysicks and much more therefore is our minde unable to look up upon that which is not only removed from sense but also from reason therefore is the apprehensive power raised by the Spirit of God to make a proportion betwixt the faculty and the object and the difficulty of apprehension is more from the weaknesse of the faculty than the sublimity of the object therefore if an Heathen or Turk or Jew were by the Spirit of God inlightned he would by reading of the Scripture have such an eye as might discern the Scriptures to be the word of God And also neither can any one by reading of the determinations of Councils see that they are the word of God Hath God provided better for their clear conversion by the voice of the Church than by his written word Doth the Turk and Jew run to the Church of Rome as naturally as the Lamb to the dam Doth the Jew think he hath reason to recieve the Scripture from the Roman as to the old Testament Or doth he not think that the Roman should take the Bible from him and therefore in course the Jew is said to offer it the Pope as he goes to his Palace If this were true it is impossible thousands should not be yearly converted by this means Ans No if the Roman could help it for he would not suffer them to have the common use of the Bible yea also may we say the same if they could not but believe by the knowledge of the Church at first sight Yea surely the reason why so few of them doe believe is not because they are not disposed to believe by reading of the Scripture but because they are not disposed to read them This effect indeed he vaunts is to be performed by the Preachers of the Church who have found the concurrence of Gods grace to the conversion of millions Ans It is well that they have so good reason to magnifie preaching and yet this action is not by their great ones so highly esteemed and this practice I think they took from their Adversaries who had the first fruits of this office and therefore if it be so the argument is available as well to them But secondly the conversion was not it seems ex vi ministerii but by the concurrence of Gods grace and surely the concurrence of Gods grace is sufficient to conversion by reading But thirdly if the Preachers of their Church as Xavier with the concurrence of Gods grace did convert millions then I hope infallibility may be even in private Doctors or else we have no need of infallibility in order to conversion But he supposeth that reading of the Scriptures alone did never find the concurrence of Gods grace to convert any single man that we could hear of Ans More may be done than they know and more may they say of their Preachers than was done Secondly were their Preachers Preachers of the Church objective If so then they had other denominations than did become them who had a mind to follow the Apostles who rather commended Christ to the Church than the Church to Christians Yea if St. Paul 2 Cor. 4 5. says We preach not our selves but Jesus Christ the Lord and our selves your servants for Jesus sake how could they preach themselves or the Roman Doctors to be the Masters of their faith and the Roman Church not onely to be the Mother but Mistrisse of the Christian world Thirdly if any did believe by them they did not believe for them and therefore was not their authority the ground of their faith nay not the authority of the Roman Church for that can have no greater authority than St. Paul had and what said he of himself 1 Ep. Cor. 3.5 For what is Paul and what is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And fourthly is not reading of the word an ordinance of God and therefore was the Law read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day and is there any ordinance of God with which he doth not at all concur though he is not bound to it yet he doth it gratiously Yea fiftly was not Junius converted to the Christian faith by reading of the first Chapter of St. John with the concurrence of God's grace N. 24 25 26 27 28 29. In all these he prosecutes the same discourse against the clearnesse of the Scripture to be the word of God by its own light And all the arguments therein do in effect hang upon one string which is a supposition that we should hold this principle of the Scripture's being the word of God to be as clearly assented to by a natural faculty as a principle of Science Only in the 29. number he doth dispute against the help of the Spirit to see the Scripture to be credible for it self That supposition we have already taken away and so the string being broken all those arguments must fall yet what in them is new and of moment I shall touch and remove As to the want of suffrages from the Antients for my opinion in this point which he chargeth it with in his twenty fourth Par. I say no more than that I have said more than he had any mind to
and is therefore assured us by the Spirit not because it is the hardest point but because it is the ground of all faith Perhaps because our Divines often call the Scriptures an undoubted principle the first principle you think they hold this principle like the first principles in Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable because they are of themselves as evident as any reason you can bring to make them more evident Ans No I had better reason for it than the expressions of their own Divines although we need no more if they in effect confesse as much as will serve us in the dispute But it is impossible for them or any other to fix a foot in Divinity but upon this ground or else we shall have no other assurance for the last resolution of faith than what we have in kind for Virgil's or Cicero's works Yea moreover their own Divines give this character of the Scripture because it is true of it it is not true because they say it and yet if it were true because they say it we make use of the Conclusion Or if it be an unquestioned principle because it is already granted to be God's word by all parties then why doth my Adversary call this into question which is the subject of the question and by all parties granted And also this makes it to be a common principle that it is granted by all parties And therefore are we to be tryed by it as by a common principle and not by the Church which is not granted by all parties to be that we should be tryed by specially if it be assumed that the Roman Church is the onely Church for then there will be a double Controversie one in thesi whether all faith is ultimately to be resolved by the Church and then another in hypothesi whether the Roman be the Church But we now put together that which he distinguisheth the Scripture is an undoubted principle and the first principle but not as the principle of Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable c. We discourse thus That which is indemonstrable is as the principle of Sciences but that which is as evident as any reason can be brought for it to make it more evident is indemonstrable therefore is it as a principle of Sciences The proposition is with my Adversary the propertie of the first principles in Sciences The Assumption is with my Adversary the very ratio formalis indemonstrabilitatis so then if the Scripture to be the word of God be as evident as any reason that can be brought for it to make it more evident then we have what we now contend for Now then if the Scripture cannot be demonstrated to be the word of God by the Church a priori then is it as evident as any reason can be brought for it but verum prius for the Church must be demonstrated by the Scriptures as we have often proved And if the Scripture were demonstrated by the Church a priori then were the Church the cause of Scripture which they themselves do not say and therefore may we give a reason of the Church by the Scripture and not infallibly of the Scripture by the Church and therefore is it as a prime principle in Sciences indemonstrable And yet my Adversary would circumvent me in the next number and bring me into a circle thinking that I am bound to give another proof by the Spirit why by the Spirit I do believe that the Scripture is the word of God but we stop him at first before he goes his rounds for he supposeth that which is not to be supposed that the testimony of the Spirit is not sufficient to make it self good to us of it self and that therefore we need another revelation secure from all illusion to ascertain me the former Ans This is little lesse than trifling for first we say not this internall testimony is proveable to others faith objective is proveable by Scripture but faith subjective is not proved but somewhat shewed by a good life for faith works by love as St. Paul And optimus Syllogismus bona vita as he said the best argument to others we have of faith is a good life But secondly we are as secure of the not being deceived in the testimony of the Spirit as the Apostles were in the kind Yea if we cannot be ascertained by the same testimony then how can the Council be assured that they are infallibly assisted by the Spirit Yea thirdly we are upon the higher ground for the assecuration of our faith because we resolve it into that which is antecedent to the Church and therefore have they lesse cause to put us upon intergatories why we believe the Scriptures for if we do not believe it for it self we have no reason to believe the Church To his Dilemma then Either I try the Spirit whether it be of God or no if I do not how am I then secure If I doe by what infallible means If I say by the Scripture you must needs laugh because you speak of the first act of belief c. Ans We say first that he misapplieth the text of the Apostle Trie the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 it is not meant of the Spirit of God I hope he thinks but of the Spirits of men which is our argument against them and therefore can we not sit down with absolute belief to what is proposed by man till we see it center'd upon the word of God which we believe infallibly came from God Secondly the tryall of the Spirits there injoined is by examining the matter whether proportionable to the word of faith but here he draws it to the triall of Scripture it self which is the rule of triall Thirdly though we do not try the testimony of the Spirit attesting to us the truth of Scripture yet the matter of Scripture may we compare with universall tradition which serves us for our use in the ministry of the Church not for our faith in the causality thereof Fourthly to be even with my Adversaries we return them their Dilemma they say we must believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Church which they say is infallible but we must infallibly know that this testimony of the Church is infallible by the Spirit of truth which leads us into all truth And this cannot be infallibly known but by a Revelation secure from all illusion And how come they by this revelation Either they try the Spirit or not if not how can they be secure If they doe by what infallible means If they say by the Church we must needs laugh because we speak of the first act of belief by which we first begin to believe the Church to be infallible Therefore all his agains are sent back again and the issue of all will come to this either this faith of the Scripture to be the word of God must be resolved into the testimony of the Spirit or of the
or in an higher kind nothing is more credible for this testimony of the Spirit which is not yet disproved makes a thing not only prudently credible but necessarily and in the way of Divine faith And that which is prudently credible doth not include this but this eminently includes that which is prudentiall credibility Yet he goes on Yet here I intreat you to mark how they resolv'd their faith then c. namely in the space of the 200 years and more wherein they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church Ans This I have marked and not precariously But what shall I see in it that will give a sober man any satisfaction For first what if they did believe the soul to be immortall because God said it by the Church and the Church because it said that it had Commission from God is authorized with infallibility and did also believe this because the Church said so and why so because they would do so what of all this therefore we are not infallibly assured that the Scripture is the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit If they did believe indeed in way of a Divine faith then the Spirit of God did assure them by tradition For otherwise they forsake the antient Theological account of faith and they must either say that faith is not an habit infused or that it may be an habit infused without the Spirit of God but if they believed improperly or in the way of humane faith as we doe believe there are seven hills at Rome without universall tradition or a miracle then this is not to the purpose for the discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench we can say as much without contradiction to our cause Secondly they cannot surely expect that we should gratifie them so much as to say there is as much reason to believe tradition now as then because now they themselves will say that we have the benefit of what assurance the general Councils can make And also 3. we must here note out of their own words for the use of our cause that for the space of 200 years and more they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church So then for the same space they had not the coroboration of general Councils and therefore these do not make the reason of belief simply as they would have it because the Church was so long without them 4. Though the universal comprehends particulars yet a particular doth not comprehend an universal therefore whatsoever assent is due to tradition universal is not due to tradition particular of Rome This is their trick to build all upon the common ground of the whole Church and then to inclose the universal Church within the walls of Rome This we must enter our plea against upon all occasions 5. We see they are come off unto some latitude in their conception of faith because the last resolution in this quest of faith they make to be thus and they would do so because they would do so and again because it had been more folly not to accept of this Church's Commission to teach them infallibly all truths So that now the acquiscence of the soul in the deep mistery of faith must be terminated and determined upon rhe variable point and principle of prudence and that which must eternaly setle our mind in the first and last ground of infallibility must be this we do so because we will do so or because it were folly not to believe So then since currente rota the discourse is come to this let us have our liberty to believe as we do believe because we see it to be folly for ought can be seen by them to accept the Church's Commission to teach infallibly all truths Sixthly if they say all truths then they seem to be fallen from their former Concession and also Stapleton's that some truths may be believed without necessity of the Church Seventhly as for the immortality of the soul which they insist in to have been believed because God said it by the Church we say easily that this might with lesse difficulty be received from the Church because it is surely probable and some will say demonstrable by reason and therefore is not only asserted by Plato who might have it from the Jewes by redundance in Aegypt whither he and Pythagoras and some others travelled for wisdom as Justin Martyr witnesseth but also in effect as I think by Aristotle And also here certainly they must be put to distinguish betwixt the Church of Rome and the whole Church or else his words are not true or else Pope John the 22. did not belong to the Church for he did not commend to others the Faith of the Immortality of the Soul And yet he goes on Which Commission to teach them infallibly all truth they knew by tradition to have been ever accepted as Divine by all good people This reason if I may say so is surely full of it self but not solid for it doth in effect run round again and the Faith of the Church is proved by the Church for they make all good people to be convertible with the Church and therefore they make the holy Catholick Church to be the visible But how then is the Church Regula regulata the Rule ruled as hath been confessed before Secondly must we content our selves with this in the grand concernment of faith because the Church did accept this Commission as Divine which we know by Tradition but how shall we know this Tradition to be of the Church before we know the Church Are they advised of this then must we come to be assured of the Doctrine before we be assured of the Church And this Doctrine we must be assured of independently of the Church because we cannot know the Church but by the Doctrine and by the Doctrine of the Scripture too as S. Austin discourseth against the Donatists Thirdly if all good people know by tradition this Commission to be divine then my Adversary needed not to have pinched the last resolution of faith so as to have said they believed because they would do so or because it had been meer folly not to accept this commission for though universal Tradition cannot transcend its sphere unto a causality of proper faith divine yet hath it more reason in it than to make a generall beliefe arbitrary or to preserve the act of it from folly in the negative A Divine assurance will not be compared with a negative prudence but universal tradition doth surpass it We had best then compound the difference betwixt himself by a kind of division thus negative prudence was suitable to his former proof Aqua ascendit quantum descendit but Divine assurance which I suppose he urgeth by tradition is necessary for the question For the certainty of faith is such as cui non potest subesse falsum in which there can be no
falsity and therefore probability cannot make faith and negative prudence can amount no higher than probability Fourthly if we must now set the basis and the foundation of all Divine faith in universal tradition then Mr. Chillingworth carries the victory clearly from the Romanist for this he disputed for in opposition to the Roman Fifthly All good people cannot make a demonstration or faith of a Conclusion And we have cause to note this as invalid because if goodness of manners were simply probative of true faith then we should be all nought in the Roman opinion because we differ with them in faith for if we had been all good people we should have accepted their grounds and hence we see their pretended reason of uncharitableness to us wherein they communicate with Sects or Sects with them But if goodness of life be so profitable for proof of truth then my Adversary with the rest of the Pontificians do not so wisely distinguish betwixt morality and infallibility in their Popes For surely then Gregory the seventh had been no good head of the Church nor Alexander the sixth who surely laughed in his sleeve when he said to an Ambassadour Quantum lucri nobis peperitilla fabula de Christo I had thought goodnesse had not belonged to a professor of Divinity as such Indeed it becoms all Scholars to be very good but this is one of the first times that I heard of this argument Let them therefore put in some formall principle of discerning truth as goodness is not unless the will can prescribe to the judgement as the judgement to the will and if it can they have the worse cause Therefore may we conclude this long Paragraph with a sober denial of what he concludes it with the ground upon which you believe Scripture to be the word of God is thought to be Chimaerical by some of your best Writers It is proved otherwise and that it is not accounted foolish or Chimerical by some of the best of our Writers we have seen before neither Mr. Hooker nor Mr. Chillingworth nay nor by some of their best Writers neither as Stapleton besides some others quoted by Dr. White as before But if he would stand to St. Austin he might have spared this dispute about Scripture for we are not to dispute the truth of Scripture he says as of other writings To conclude then this number in kind we might as well take the boldnesse to say that their ground upon which they stand in the maintenance of their faith as different from us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Lion before a Dragon behind and a Chimera in the middle In this number he urgeth unsecurity of our grounding faith as to the ignorant in translations Num. 34. but this hath been by him pressed before and by me answered and nothing is here replied by him but somewhat more is promised ch 4. n. 9. And therefore might we skip it but it may be he would interpret our omission to his advantage He says then How unsecurely the greater part of your Religion did ground their faith because they must trust the translations of private men and believe them rather and use them rather than the translations used by the Church in Generall Councils Ecce iterum Crispinus but we answer in this he would have three propositions granted him one that Generall Councils did use their Latine translation Secondly that our translations are the off-spring of private men Thirdly that most of us must ground their faith in the trust of private mens translations To these we answer in three words and in generall denying all of them As to the first we say that the General Councils which were celebrated in Greece did not surely make use of the Latine translation Nay secondly their Latine translation which they would have to be Jerom's for antiquity was not at first received in the Church but denied by St. Austin Yea thirdly their Latine translation which now they use cannot be St. Jerom's for I hope it was mended by Sixtus Quintus and again refined by Clement the eighth and surely though it was Canonized by the Trent Council before it was made yet surely it was not made currant in the Church for use before it was born And if they say there is no reall and materiall difference betwixt their Latine as now and in antient times we say first absolutely that Isider Clarius who came after Clement will then find fault with both in severall thousand places But then also we say in compare neither are there any reall and materiall differences in our English from the original But fourthly did the Generall Councils use the Latine translation for their Judge in Scripture then are not the Generall Councils infallible because that translation was not infallibly made nor made infallible by the Church even in the Trent Council as some of their own have intimated as before To the second proposition we give also a denial Our English translation is not to be accounted the translation of private men because it is authorized by our Church although at first made by private men And what if they yet made good to hinder as great an assistance of the spirit of God to the establishment of this Translation as they finde for their Remish Testament That which is made by private men is made more than private by authority of the Church And if they deny this distinction they undo all their Councils And if they say our Church hath it self as a private part to the whole so we say doth the Roman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly As to the third proposition we deny it also the most do not trust in the Translations nay none do trust in Translations simply because they are not Scripture as per se but analogically to the Scripture in the originall So that ultimately they are assured that the translation is in the matter agreeable to Scripture as they are assured that the Scripture is the word of God namely through faith infused by the Spirit of God So they do not believe the Translation but that which is translated The Translation formally is no mean to assure their Faith but is a mean of conveyance of it to their knowledge And surely our people may as well believe that the Translation is as free from all damnative error as their people may believe what their Church proposeth to be free from damnative error first because they rely upon a Translation that teach and a Translation not so good Secondly because our people can consult the Translation so cannot their people understand the Vulgar Latine and therefore if those who translated it were not deceived yet those who propose it may deceive the people and thirdly because the authority of their Translation were far greater yet was it made by those Priests of theirs deeply interessed in this cause as well as he saies our might be by private Ministers deeply interessed in this cause and also because yet is
put me in minde again that I cannot credit it to be the Word of God by virtue of the Translation since according to my opinion Translations are onely so far Gods Word as they agree with the Originals but we have onely Translations of S. Matthews Gospel no Original at all This we have in places before spoken to But suppose no Original Copie of Saint Matthews Gospel yet this makes no impossibility of belief in Stapletons judgement because we may believe immediately without the interposal of the Church And the Translation is considerable as an Instrument to represent the Object not to help the Effect it hath more relation to the fides quae than the fides quâ to the Faith objective rather than the Faith subjective So that I do not believe the sense to be true for the Translation but I beleve the Translation true because it agrees with the Sense And he that made the Originall can Supply it Again they belive the Gospel of St Matthew Do they not how do they believe it by the authority of the Church Well but what authority had the Church either operative or declarative to make or declare that to be Scripture which was not Scripture they say then the Church can make translations and particularly the vulgar latin to be authentique but the vulgar is not absolutely authentique by confession of their own men And besides the best reason which could be had it been true of the vulgar was this that that should be authentique because it was made by the original copies before they were corrupted Yea but my adversaries say there was no original copie of St. Matthews Gospel or if there was they are worthy to die as David said of Abner because they have kept their Master no better Are they now the Church unto which perfidia non potest habere accessum no unfaithfulness can have access Again if there was not an original copie or no copie of the original how shall we believe their Church to be infallible since the chief place of strength for their Church is found in that Gospel 16. Ch. 18. as Perron would think Suppose the question then be made how they prove their infallibility by Scripture answer is made by the 16. of St. Matt. the 18. Well but we must know it first to be the word of God before they prove their Church infallible by it Now they are at as great a loss as we for they cannot prove that Text to be the word of God by the infallibility of the Church because the infallibility of the Church is in question if that be not before hand assured to us that it is the word of God If then at length they have a mind to rest themselves in common argumentative principles and resolve their perswasion of it to be the word of God upon the credit of universal tradition so do we as to this kind of perswasion Whereas then they say It is uncertain who the Translator was and of what skill and honesty we answer this makes more against them For if a Divine Faith be necessary as they mightily assert then it is reason that we should less relie upon humane arguments which make but humane faith and therefore for our private assurance should believe it upon Gods own authority To that they say If there were one Hebrew Copie then in St. Ierom's time what is that to our purpose now I answer first that this may abate their confidence of an absolute negative 2. If those of Beraea did gratifie St. Ierom with the use of that Hebrew Copy it is very probable that as the former Beraeans were diligent in searching the Scriptures whether those things spoken by St. Paul were true so those would take care to consign it â—o posterity if there was but that one copie thereof 3. If he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans to describe it as before then surely of that Autograph St. Ierome would have made an Apograph he would have made another copy And 4. If the translation they so much brag of were his they know what skill and honesty the Translator was of So then they are brought to this either to take my answer or to deny their translation which they will And all their shifts will not help them N. 47. Here he would put me out of my shifts as he calls them I asked them how they were sure of their latin interpretation to be authentique they say now by tradition of former ages Well but we are satisfied thus also by way of argument concerning the Scriptures and in particular concerning the Gospel of St. Matthew We say also that we are infallibly satisfied herein by the Spirit of God And this way of faith I hope we may assert we may believe what we cannot prove as they believe that Roman Faith which they cannot prove But he saies we are incapacitated to make use of tradition This tradition doth not certâ—fie you because you hold it fallible So then Crede quod habes habes Is this a sufficient argumentation And so consequently it is infallible to you because you hold it infallible So it must it seems be You do not hold it because it is infallible but it is infallible because you hold it And thus infallibility shall not make faith but opinion shall make infallibility I had thought before that verity had been fundamentally in things and that things had not been true because we conceive them so but our conceits had been true because things are so Surely it is a better argument that the Roman Faith cannot be certified to them because their principles are uncertain as hath been shewed then that tradition cannot certifie us because we hold it fallible If it be infallible we are as sure as they in the certitude of the object though because we think it fallible we are not certain certitudine subjecti in the certitude of the subject valeat quantum valere potest And why would they have us sure of our faith in the certainty of the subject and yet scarce allow a certainty of salvation in the certitude of the object But then 2. They are sure by the tradition of former ages namely universal tradition they mean do they not if so universal traditition includes all places then how comes infallibility to be the prerogative of their Church when they are to prove their faith by universal tradition 3. It seems they do not hold tradition to be infallible and therefore by their own argument it cannot certifie them since that which was held in the Church universally for the first ages they do not now hold as they have been told namely the millenary opinion infant communion standing up in prayer from Easter to Whitsuntide Yea why do they not stand up altogether at prayer as was appointed by a Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. If they mean the terme certifie as infallibly we grant it if they mean it morally we deny it and therefore if they
have no more certainty then of tradition for their faith they have no faith of proper name 5. We are upon the surer ground to trust upon the Scripture because the Church must be subordinate to it then they because they trust to the Church for the truth of Scripture For if this were right then the Church might have that priviledge which St. Paul could not claim to himself namely to be mistress of our faith whereas St. Paul denies it 2. Ep. Cor. 1.24 Not as Masters of your Faith but helpers of your joy And we have Estius also of our opinion as before that all faith hath not the authority of the Church for the formal reason thereof this is enough against his first shift the second shift is this Gospel might possibly at the first be written in Greek and here he asks me whether possibilities grounded upon conjectures be sufficient to ground an infallible assent We answer no but exceptions of a possibility of error are sufficient to contradict infallibility They say they have an infallible faith we say there is a possibility of error herein and this is enough for us against them And then 2. This weapon we use against you Possibilities grounded upon conjectures are not sufficient to ground an infallible assent This it seems is their own position now they have nothing but possibilities for them therefore they have no infallible assent This assumption hath been proved before upon their own principles We have nothing but possibilities grounded upon conjectures that they have a right Pope legitimate in his Baptisme and priesthood and so of other Priests there might be want of due matter due form due intention which with them make the act null But then he compares the inevidence of St. Matthews Gospel to be the uncorrupted word of God with the evidence of St. Lukes Gospel to be such by its own light and would have me think as much reason to believe the inevidence of the latter as I doe of the former but 1. he doth not rightly to compare the evidence of St. Lukes Gospel with the inevidence of St. Matthew's as he would have me graunt As if because I supposed an inevidence which was the original I also graunted an inevidence of the Gospel and yet faith doth not exclude a negative inevidence there may be certitude of assent without evidence of the object therefore we say 2. We are rather assured of the language by the Scripture then of the Scripture by the language otherwise the ignorant people could have no faith of Scripture 3. We can give upon our own principles as much credit to the Church as to the point of the originall language as the Church can require or they prove 4. How did the Church first accept it to be the word of God whether the Greek was the originall or not By the internall testimonie of the spirit it must be said For if it should be said we receive now by tradition of former ages this is forecluded because we ask the question how the first Church accepted it if not by the spirit of God internally assuring them then let them tell us how they came to the faith thereof not opinion if so then why may we not receive it so too And moreover it doth not follow that if the Gospel of St. Matthew were originally greek therefore we should see it to be so as well as St. Luke A posse ad esse non valet Multa videntur quae non sunt multa sunt quae non videntur Many things seem which are not many things are which are not seen Every irradiated understanding of theirs doth not see all points which belong to their Church Some do see the Monarchie of the Church to be as Bellarmin some do not see the Monarchy of the Church as Spalatensis notes Again how came it to pass that the former Churches did not see the Apocryphal books to be Gods true and uncorrupted word and yet some Church of later times hath seen them such answers of mine would be repetitions were they not answers to his repetitions Nextly he comes to my argument which I did not make much of but he less that the Gospel of St. Matt. was written in Greek because the Greek copie doth interpret the word Immanuel which if it were written in Hebrew needed not any interpretation But my Adversary might have added if he had pleased that which followes in my Paper since the letters of the word put together without any variation do make that signification And this we called not a demonstration nor a probability but rather a possibility by that reason And therefore unless he did make all things invincible by infallibility he needed not to have called it a pittiful weak conjecture Well but what said he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He answers then it is manifest that translations of Scripture usually tell us the Hebrew word first and then the translation of it so Gen. Bi. 48. Galaad id est tumulus testis Not to take any notice of the Scribe he puts here that in the way of interpretation which is there delivered in way of a cause and reason of the terme Ver. 47. but Iacob called it Galeed then 48. for Laban said this heap is witness between me and thee this day therefore he called the name of it Galeed And before the name which Laban gave it in Chaldee Segar Sahudatha is not there interpreted although there be a little difference between that and the name which Iacob gave it in Hebrew for Galeed signifies the heap of witnes the other heap his witnes Therefore whereas he would make Galaad id est tumulus testis to be in termes Scripture it is not so No m re is that of Exodus 12. Phasâ— id est transitus It is not said so there but there is a reason given why they should â—at it in haste for it is the Lords Passeover ver 11. the reason is given before which is contrary to what he saies that it is usual to put the Hebrew words first and then the translation of it but here is the reason before and no formal interpretation Ratio nominis I hope is different from an interpretation Another instance and indeed in order before the last is Gen. 35.18 Benoni i.e. filius doloris mei Benjamin id filius dextrae But here also he presumptuously supposeth his vulgar latin to be Scripture which is to suppose that which is not to be supposed and indeed a sophism in begging that which is in question none of all languages which the great Bible set out with us hath doth put in these words in form of an exposition The Syriaâ—k and the Arabick and the Greek doe express the matter of the interpretation but then they leave out the name Benoni but all keep Benjamin without any interpretation Another instance of his is Exod. 16.15 31. Manna quod sign ficat quid est hoc And here again he takes the vulgar Latin for
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
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
afterwards and take Tradition for the matter of what was written we grant it if but he takes tradition of the primitive Church to be that which was derived to after times and was not written we deny it to be believed upon her sole Authority In the former sense it is true but not pertinent in the latter pertinent but not true And indeed this was the notion of Traditions for the first times namely to be that sâ—â—â—â—e of doctrine which did comprehend the materialls of faith 〈◊〉 to be any thing different from Scripture or diverse 〈…〉 first of the Gal. 8. doth not signifie contra but praeâ—â—â— from Scripture So he will finde Irenaeus to mean it And so St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his 5. Cat. 117. p of the gr last Ed. makes it to be upon account no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the System out of the Holy Scriptures about every of those things conteined And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for things of faith were not composed as it pleased men but the most pertinent things being gathered out of all Scripture do make up the doctrine of faith And again as the seed of mustard in a little grain doth contein many branches so faith it self in few words doth comprehend the knowledge of piety that is in the old and new Testament And what followes but that text which he my adversary named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see therefore Brethren and hold the Traditions So then if he takes Tradition in the first sense the Church was infallible therein by the Apostles if in the second the Tradition was infallibly Scripture and the Church believed it upon that account And that Traditions did not bind either in their own virtue or without Scripture they may see in St. Basil who yet speaks much for them So in the seventh ch of the Holy Ghost where speaking of the controversie whethre they were to say of the Son of God with whome or by whome he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. this is not sufficient to us that it is a Tradition of the Fathers for even they did follow the will of Scripture having taken principles out of testimonies which a little before we proposed to you out of Scripture God therefore said by his Apostles that the Traditions then were infallible being in matter the same with what they wrote for their Authority Now if God said this shall we upon his fallible discourse for even Councils are fallible in their discourse come to say the Church's Traditions are further infallible then agreeable to his word though God never said so and never yet expressed any such infallibility of the Church And thus I return him his own words mutatis mutandis And so my Argument out of Irenaeus is not yet refuted Neither doth he take away my use of Irenaeus testimony in the next paragr For as to my Argument what he saies is not appliable It was thus out of his Authority If the 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 but the Scripture is now left to us therefore no need of certain conveighance of tradition to us This Syllogism he makes no offer of answer to for that which he saies in a Parenthesis though you cannot invent the means by which Tradition should have been conveighed more certainly supposing there had been no Scripture I can receive without prejudice to my Argument for whatsoever Hypothetically should have been done had not there been Scripture yet now since we have Scripture we have no such need of we now dispute upon the fact not against the supposition Therefore from the dint of the ratiocination he digresseth to an observation of disrespect in me to St. Irenaeus because I said Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely onely upon Tradition Ans He is in this deceived To assent to Tradition in the matter of it and not to assent to the matter upon the sole Authority of Tradition are not such opposites as he imagines for they may well agree Therefore though the Father said they did assent to Tradition as to the matter yet not by Tradition as the manner Tradition was the objectum materiale not the objectum formale of their Faith And the next words as he also perhibits the Fathers words do defend my answer having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost So then they were assured of the Doctrine of Salvation by the Holy Ghost then they did not believe that Tradition upon the sole Authority of the Church So this contradicts my Adversary and makes for me not onely by consequence because it is against him but directly for then we can as well be assured of Scripture by the Holy Ghost have no such need then of the authority of the Church as to salvation though the church were infallible which is one of the things to be proved and cannot And yet besides this tradition in the sense of the Father was in the matter of it Scripture and therefore hath no consanguinity with the true state of the question So then we may conclude in the negative they did not rely upon or believe upon the sole account of that very tradition yet if they had it would not conclude against our cause because that tradition is not the same with what belongs to the question To be civil to an Adversary in this number N. 14. all the sense of it may be resolved into this discourse If the radition of the Church testifying her own infallibility in proposing for Gods Word that which she delivereth for Gods word be to be believed then she is to be believed as proposing that to be Gods Word which is not written Ans This hath been abundantly agitated before with our indemnity to the Plaintiffe but since he repeats I do not And we answer First the consequence is not clear especially if we extend it to that which is not grounded in Scripture if he understands it of that which is grounded in Scripture it is not proper to the question As to that which is not grounded in Scripture we may still deny the major Tradition universal of the Church may be worthy of assent as to the truth of Scripture to be the Word of God and not so of that which is delivered beside Scripture which also is held by others against them and the reason is not yet disproved because there was more necessity of the Faith of Scripture than that which is delivered beside Scripture and therefore may we well suppose a greater assistance to the proposing of Scripture than any thing diverse Deus non deficit in necessariis Why do they assert infallible assistance to General Councils not to private Doctors or to a National Council Namely because others are to be directed by the General Councils well then the Church universal might be more assisted for the proposing of
move this question but somwhat else was annexed which he saies nothing to Well to this he now answers first they could know this better then know true Scripture from false for they could not do that but by knowing first the true Tradition recommending the true Scripture from the false tradition recommending the false Ans First this hath been often denied him that the ultimate resolution of faith in the true Scripture is not Tradition this may lead us to the gate of the Temple but this does not open the doore of faith 2. That Tradition which makes an inducement is of the universall not Roman Church 3. How shall we know true tradition but by the true Church How shall we know the true Church but by Scripture therefore we must know the true tradition from the false by the Scripture which contradicts his method And he saies they could do this as well or better than their fore-Fathers for many hundred of years yea for two thousand yea for twice two thousand years together Answ First they see then their error in defining Faith so strictly to be an infallible assent since they here stand upon a comparative certainty if so which amounts not to the consistence of faith Secondly He supposeth that which is not to be supposed that their fore-fathers were determined in their faith of the word of God by Tradition Even now or a litle before he said Tradition was estalished to the Jew by Scripture Now Tradition is that which must discerne and consequently stablish Scripture 3. It appears that as Scripture is more perfect then Tradition because otherwise God had gone the worst way namely from that which is more perfect to that which is less perfect namely from Tradition to the writing of his word but that which is less pefect cannot establish that which is more perfect Therfore neither then nor now could Scripture receive the blessing of establishment from that which is inferiour 4. In the times of the law there was no other Church to vie with the Jewes about Traditions And therefore they might be more certain of true Traditions But now there are several national Churches which may pretend superiority of tradition or tradition of superiority as the Roman doth and therefore it is not so sure a way to fixe our last foot upon Tradition 5. Universal Tradition of all times and places which only weighs in this cause is not in other things for them nor in that canon supernumerary of theirs and therefore let them either retract the argument or take it Yet he will be confident of two Traditions whereof the efficacie is commended with perpetuall profession and answerable practice dayly occurring Baptism of Infants and praier for the faithfull eparted The first of these we have abundantly examined before and he does here most insist upon the latter assigning also his reason of more practice of this last Because they baptize Infants but once but they pray â—ften for the same man who is dead And then being more practised it is more confirmed which Cressie also urgeth Ans As for Paedobaptism here he doth not prove it to be a Tradition unless this be a true proposition that whatsoever is commended with perpetual profession and answerable practice daly accurring is only delivered by Tradition Tradition is such but all that is such is not Tradition Therefore that proposition denied And for what he saies towards both before that the Apostles did only by unwritten Tradition clearly and undeniably teach the baptizing of Children and praier for the faithfull departed it is not clear that it is undeniable and therefore clearely and undeniably it is denied Baptism of Infants hath not yet lost sufficient ground in Scripture to keep it from a necessity of being named Tradition as he should have shewed And as to the other praier for the dead we answer first it seemes then it is but a Tradition and they will pradon us if we speak thus diminutively of it And whether this will please all the Roman Doctors that it should have no footing in Scripture let it be none of our care 2. For the object of persons whom they praied for question would be made what morally they were who were to be praied for but this he tells us he saies they were the faithfull Well but all the faithfull I suppose It may be they will say yes If not let them give us a reason of their distinction according to Tradition If so then praier for the dead doth not inferr purgatory which they intend in the praier for the dead And the reason of the consequence is proved because praier was made for all the faithfull and some of them went up to Heaven per saltum as they will also confess namely Apostles and Martyrs and yet these were also prayed for in order to a joyful resurection And indeed the antient praiers for the dead did respect their bodies in the grave to be raised up at the resurrection not their soules to be raised out of Purgatory after a plenary satisfaction And what meanes St. Austin in Tract In Iohannem 49. unus quisque cum causa sua dormiet cum causâ suâ resurget And some of their own have lately in this differed from them Neither had the Roman Church with their infallibility perswaded the Greek Church hereof in Nilus's time who hath a learned discourse against it And thirdly as for Inscriptions upon the Graves whereby he would make a prescription for the tradition we say two things First that we must have them to be shewed to be so antient as to have been universally used in the Primitive times and then secondly that they were used upon the Roman account And as for Aerius who onely as he saies denied praying for the dead to be accounted for this his opinion an Heretick by St. Austin and St. Epiphanius they must somewhat excuse us for this absolutely is not right for their turn if true First not right for their use because he might deny prayers and oblations for the dead in the former respect namely for a joyful resurrection and this comes not up to the state of the point wherein we differ namely whether prayer for the dead was a tradition in their sense as inferring Purgatory But 2. Neither is it absolutely true that Aerius was accounted an Heretique for this opinion exclusively to other opinions of his as my Adversaries words import However he meant them I will pinch it Either he means for this opinion only or for this opinion with other opinions If for this opinion concurrently with others this derogates from the common sense of his words and from his use too because if he was accounted an heretique for severall opinions it may be some of them were not heretical opinions and then it cannot be said that he was for every of them accounted an heretick unless we could make some to be heresies which are not heresies and this would be a contradiction Well then I
no better answer the other Council being held good without his royal assent yea notwithstanding his opposition there will be another instance of a Council opposing a Council namely the Council of Ariminum opposing the Council of the first Nicene But thirdly As to his reason why it was not acknowledged a lawful Council because he subscribed not I deny it upon Sozomen his account in his 16. B. 23. ch if he takes his not subscribing as he seems to do for the only cause For he Sozomen saies there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because neither the Bishop of the Romans nor others did consent to them because many did dislike those things which were decreed by them Had they then in the council of Ariminum decreed according to the Nicene Fathers the council of Ariminum might have passed with St. Austin notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome's not subscribing it though not comparatively to the proof of Scripture but we see here in this testimony three particulars against them First That he is here called the Bishop of the Romans Not the Bishop signanter nor the universal Bishop nor the Bishop of the Church He hath but his share with the rest and limited by local Jurisdiction Then how can they say that the Bishop of Rome is the chief Bishop and Head of the Church Secondly We see here that the Consent of others concurs towards the making of a Council lawful And therefore the consent of the Bishop of Rome is not that which is the form informant of the Council nor that which legitimates it And thirdly We see the reason in part at least to be because they disliked those things which were decreed in the Council of Ariminum And therefore if it had been a full meeting and consented to yet had been exceptable against in regard of the matter for surely the presence of all and their Subscription would not have made that matter to be good which was naught For then they had declared that to be good which was not and this had been an errour Therefore though we receive the four General Councils we are not bound to receive the Decrees of every Council because we do not receive the Council simply but do receive the Council for the Doctrine not the Doctrine for the Council Therefore upon the whole matter he had no great reason to admire my instancing in the Council of Ariminum Neither doth it follow that because one Council hath erred therefore every one Therefore that which he saies may be falsly reported that some tax the councils of all ages of errours against Scripture Every one may erre without any impossibility Some have shewed a possibility by errour But any ones possibility doth not inferre any ones act much less of all And if any one should have said so they are acquainted well with their own answer they are but private men that say so And why doth he tell us of Mechanicks that speak disrespectively of all Councils Let them first answer for some body of their black coate who said the Scripture was as a Nose of Wax They make to us a need of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As to the twelfth answer We have had the substance of it also before The incustation of it makes it not solid It doth no way follow that because their first Council Acts 15. said It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Therefore every Council even lawful should say so This is to be proved not propounded And let Ferus their own give them the reason upon the fifteenth of the Acts. Let them either make it good that every assistance is infallible or that every Council had that assistance which is infallible And their postulate that Anathemas should conclude infallibility in their Councils is denied them Secondly They bind more unto peace than Faith And so their form in the Trent Council is Si quis haec attentare presumpserit c. If any shall presume to attempt tnese things c. Thirdly Neither is there such danger by them unless every one were bound to submit his assent Yea me thinks the Trent Council doth speak in their beginnings somwhat more modestly of their Synod in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata lawfully gathered together in the Holy Ghost Every meeting infallible is lawful but every lawful meeting is not infallible As for his thirteenth Answer he takes into a consideartion that of Nazianzen touching Councils And he would distinguish that he did not speak of a lawful free General council called and directed by the chief Pastour of the church prefiding in it So then He doth despise all Councils but such doth he not Yes they will say presently Then he despised all Councils for there were none so called so directed so presided in his time or before nor presently after The fifth Council of Constantinople which was about 553. under Iustinian the Emperour did sit and determin without and against Vigilius the Bishop of Rome And secondly As to that he saies that Nazianzen's speech did respect the times of the Arrian troubles which St. Basil takes notice of we say suppose it yet this also makes a prejudice to all Councils in the time of the Arrian heresie because it is very like that several close Arrians might in Council mingle with the Orthodox And thirdly It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he concludes from a respect to Councils in the other Fathers unto an asserting of their infallibility A genere ad speciem non sequitur affirmative because they gave them some respect therefore such as imported their infallibility it doth no way follow Fourthly Neither doth Nazianzen's respect to the Nicene Council contradict him here For although that might proceed well in his opinion yet speaking de communi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he might say as he said Neither doth it appear that he imbraced it upon its own authority intuitively but because he approved the Doctrines otherwise why should not eight hundred Bishops in Ariminum be as credible as not half so many in Nice But it may be that the conclusions in the Nicene Council were Prophetical and the discourse of those of Ariminum was fallible Yea but they will say that the Discourse in the Nicene Council was fallible though the conclusions Prophetical Let this be proved and we have done But the Nicene Fathers as before professed that they proceeded by principles of Scripture in their determinations And so Bellarmin is driven to confess in his 12. l. de concil Sed ex verbo Dei per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones they deduce their conclusions from the Word of God by discourse Let Bellarmin then answer Stapleton At the latter end of this Section He takes me up for a saying of the Bishop of Bitonto in the Council of Trent And he is confident that that account of him hath no credible ground Ans Surely as good ground as Brierly had for several passages which he produceth out of our
nothing If all the strength of Rome can sufficiently reinforce the former Texts against us for the Church universal and then for them reducant nos if they cannot redeant ad nos as the Father said N. 23. This Section is in good part made up of repetitions towards the reurging on their be half 1. Ep. to Tim. 3.15 How much Paper is taken up with petitions and repetitions petitions of the principle and repetitions of what was said before Upon this I distinguished of a double Pillar the Principal Scripture a subordinate one the Church And now he saies pleasantly this double dealing in distinguishing helpeth you not The Church must still be a true Pillar and ground of truth Ans Distinguishing is plain dealing double dealing makes confusion Therefore we distinguish again the Church may be a true Pillar and ground or establishment of truth ex officio and subordinately yet not infallible That which is infallible is such all that is such is not infallible Dic aliquid contra ut simus duo He should have contradicted or said nothing The people believed God and Moses saith the Scripture right But the copulative doth not alwaies equally reduplicate the act to diverse objects In the Proverbs it is said Fear God and the King yet the King is not to be feared equally with God So they believed God and Moses in the curt fashion of Hebrew speech But they did not believe Moses as they did God God for himself upon his own veracity Moses for God Now let them prove that God speaks by the Church as he spake by Moses and we have done God spake to Moses face to face Did he speak so to the Church He spake then to Moses immediatly doth he speak so to the Church He spake to and by Moses who was King in Iesuron Aaron was formally the High Priest Doth he speak so now to and by civil Magistrates If he does where are the priviledges of the Church which they vaunt of If not why do they urge that Text It is true Rex est mixta persona cum Sacerdote but this maxim is not for them Their maxim is inverted Sacerdos est mixta persona cum Rege Moses morally wrought miracles so does not now the Church If Xaries could indeed have wrought miracles in the Indies why did he corrupt the Gospel In short when they can prove that the Church speaks all they speak by Revelation from God as the Jews believed that what Moses spake he spake from God then they may apply that Text to God and the Church which is applied to God and Moses The sense of their believing Moses was that they believed what he said to be spoken from God this is now the question of the Church therefore they should not have compared Moses and the Church but Moses and an Apostle This had been more Symbolical but this would not have been serviceable Well then if they would have been contented with this that the Church should have been subordinate to Scripture the quarrel would soon be ended What then Would they have the Scripture subordinate to the Church Adieone pudorem cum pudicitia perdiderunt So he saies The Church was by St. Paul called the pillar and ground of truth without subordination to Scripture as then not written Ans Will they hold themselves to this that what is not said in Scripture in terms is not to be construed as the sense of the Scripture If they will then what will become of their points of difference as to Scripture If they will not then this distinction is not to be rejected upon that account because it is not said so there But secondly His reason because Scripture then was not written is to be examined If he understands it absolutely it is false Was not the Old Testament then written And if the Romanist fetcheth his Monarchy of the Church from the Anaology to the Jewish High Priest why should not the Old Scripture be sufficient to subordinate the Church And if the Scripture was then sufficient as St. Paul saies to make wise unto Salvation before the Canon was finished was it not able to bear the Churches dependance upon it And is it not as able now when the Canon is compleated As to the times of the Church before any part of Scripture was written we have several times spoken before Put it into a Syllogism thus That which God speaks we are bound to believe upon account of his veracity That which the Church speaks to us God speaks therefore Now as to the major whosoever denies it is interpretative an Atheist The assumption then is that we stick at though the Roman accounts us for this not Christians The times of the Church before any part of Scripture was written were chiefly those wherein that proposition was consented to and yet not by all that knew the doctrine of the Church Therefore those who then did believe had not only a Faith disposing them to believe that what God saies is true For this is said by Aristotle in effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is a proposition of reason that what God saies is true but they had a divine Faith habituating them to the belief that that which was spoken by the Church was truly communicated to the Church from God Now here the hinge turns whether their Faith terminated upon the Church as the subjectum quo or upon the matter delivered by the Church as the subjectum quod We deny the former because divine Faith cannot rise upon humane testimony therefore Faith could not be caused by such a testimony which is humane without a Revelation from God that what the Church did speak it did speak from God Therefore the church had it self then towards Faith as proposing the matter not as resolving the assurance And can we not then as well be now assured that what the Scripture doth propose is the Word of God as what the Church proposed then was the Word of God And so Faith must at length not only cause us to believe that what God saies is true but also to believe that God hath said this therefore He likes not then my reason for the subordination of the Church to Scripture not for the reason against which other reasons will soon be found Ans This will require a very good intention but thus he is pleased to put off my discourse Bellarmin proves his propositions by Scripture by reason by Fathers Therefore he makes his heads of proof and holds of Faith And another would say that my Adversaries were beaten out of all their holds He saies to my reason here against it other reasons will soon be found when they are found we shall find answers Let them tell me from whom the Church hath its authority They will say from Christ Well he is supposed the Author But where is the Instrument and Patent for our knowledge that Christ hath passed such a grant The Church saith it they will say
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
buckler it is enough to us that he cannot or does not prove it But then 2. He is wanting in another thing because he doth not produce his reasons against our reasons let them draw the Sword and cut the knots if they cannot unty them Let them bring forth their strong reasons as the Prophet speakes When as then he saies bring against my illimited Text another Text limiting we say that the cause and our office is upon the negative until he brings another Text for his sense or gives reason for it or gives us the consent of all ages of the Church we have nothing more to thinke besides what hath been said then that he had reason to say more then what follows the necessity of the people which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infalliblity was greater in ages remoter from Christ But this was answered to by retortion that then Traditions it seemes now are not to be accounted equally certain And he answers now that which he had better have kept in He saies now it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles was crucified did rise again then it was presently after these thinges happened yet all these things be as infallibly true now as they were then and as infallible so I say of traditions which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty Ans Traditions then were but equall to Scripture Traditions now are not equall to Traditions then Therefore they are not now equall to Scripture And this spoyles their Traditions and contradicts the Trent Council which determins that they are to be received Pari pietatis affectu And so hath he lost his hold of Traditions by his own words Neither will it save him to say that they are now as infallible as then in themselves but not to us for so is the Scripture infallible in it self without the Church as they confess but it doth not so appear to us they say 2. They are to make good if they can degrees of infallible assistance by the least degree of infallibility But to goe on what if there be no such necessity c. Ans He seemes to be towards a punctum reflexionis here well if there be no such necessity of equall assistance then my answer to such Texts is the better And then let them take the rule which their own do use Deus non deficit in necessaris nec abundat in superfluis God doth not abound in things superfluous nor is wanting in things necessary But then also if it be not necessary why have my adversaries so much pleaded the necessity of an infallible judge Indeed it might be if God had pleased and yet not necessary by necessity of consequent but they are wont to prove it to be because it is necessary He goes on Did not the Church alone serve to decide all controversies before the Scripture was written c. We answer as often before The Church is not thence concluded infallible put it into forme that which decides all controversies is infallible the Church before Scripture was written did decide all controversies Therefore it is infallible No. We first deny the proposition That which decides all controversies decides them infallibly does not follow This cannot be proved less will not serve them Then 2. To the assumption we can deny it it did not decide all controversies put case it did decide all necessary controversies yet not all controversies And we must have a judge they say to decide all controversies whatsoever And 3. If the Church then before Scripture was written did decide all controversies whatsoever then surely there is not that assistance infallible now given to the Roman Church because notwithstanding they have the Scripture and Traditions yet they cannot decide all controversies If they can they are not faithfull and then that of St. Cyprian is not due to them now that perfidia non potest habere accessum If they cannot where is the equall assistance and then also what was decided by the Church was decided by the Scripture in the substance of it though not then written so that he had no cause to contradistinguish this decision of the controversies to the use of Scripture Again he saies did not the old Scripture testifie as much as was necessary that Iesus Christ was the true Messias Yes to what end then was Iohn Baptist sent to testifie this Ans First if the old Scripture did sufficiently testifie of the Messias then that which I have said concerning the sufficiency of the whole Canon is surely sufficient if it did not sufficiently testifie then his argument is none 2. There is not par ratio for the adding infallibility to the Church after the Canon is consigned as for St. Iohns testimony notwithstanding the old Scripture More might be requisit for the settling of the Primitive Church then after because the Church after was to be grounded in the Primitive But he saies there is as good reason In ages after the first when the Church should grow from a grain of mustard seed c. This proves nothing unless there might arise such a controversie which could not upon Salvation be decided without an infallible Judge Let them prove this and they will say somthing If not this will not be to the purpose that several controversies in such a space might arise And would not the same number of necessary points material and formal serve as many more thousands of Christians And those controversies which he names we have spoken to nay when they have as they suppose an infallible Judge are all controversies ended Let them bethink themselves what differences amongst them are yet dependent as before We waite therefore for the proof of such a promise of assistance extended to infallibility for other ages of the Church It is not enough for him to say why might not Christ for any thing you know thinke this a sufficient reason A posse in the premises will not make an actuality in the conclusion 2. there is a difference betwixt a reason after the thing is apparent and a reason to prove the thing to be if they can soundly prove to us that there is such an assistance given in promise to the Church in all ages then we should sooner be induced to the acknowledgment of his reason But there is nothing in the reason till the reason prove the thing 3. If words in Scripture were to be taken allwaies simply according to the termes what need would there then be of an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture Therefore let them chuse which they will do whether they will allwaies have Scripture meant according to the uppermost import of the letter if so then the sense of Scripture is plain which they have denied if not then may they admit a limitation of that assistance spoken of Matthew 28.3 This forme of modality why might not should not one would think become the high mode of infallible assistance
not deny to be judged by reasoning out of Scripture no nor by antiquity neither though it be not an argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but they have more need to bragg of them because they are not theirs 5. I do not appeal to Scripture as a formal Judge but as to the law by which all Judgment is to be made And again as the Philosopher those the best lawes which leave least to the Judge All things then considered he hath reason to quit the field unless he hath a minde to encamp against the truth And if they have so much for them in Scripture and in â—â—sert words as here he cracks surely those Romanists who have spoken of Scripture so diminutively have not been so wise as they might have been So then this Paragraph we may end with this account the Socinian is supposed to plead reason against Scripture and the Church The Papist pleads the Church without reason or the Scripture The Protestant pleads Scripture with reason and the Church Catholick N. 36. This concerns the reading of a place in St. Austin De utilitate credendi which he quoted about the authority of the Church thus velut gradu certo innitentes I found it in a Froben Edition otherwise namely thus velut gradu incerto nitentes He saies it is in an antienter Froben as he reads it And besides he thinks the scope might lead me to his reading Ans The scope directs us to think the authority of the Church to be but as moving not as determining Faith as I have shewed upon another place of St. Austin which he replies nothing to Moved we are by that authority as an uncertain step to God by whom we are assured not to God as the object of worship but to God as the author of our faith And as for his objection that it is ridiculous to be helped to certain truth by authority uncertain it is not of much weight For although uncertainty formal is not helpful unto truth yet that which is uncertain for us to rely upon may be helpfull As the Catholick Moderator observes of the Huguenot in point of justification that he is somewhat nice because he will not lay hold upon such a bough which peradventure might save him yet is he not to be blamed because he doth rely upon the righteousnes of Christ which is a certain bough and will surely save him so it may be we are thought too scrupulous because we will not leane and rest our faith upon the authority of the Church yet are we not to be blamed because we rest it upon God Yet may we then rely upon a bough uncertain till we come to a ground more certain The voice of the woman of Samaria was not certain yet the people were moved to come to Christ by what she said but afterwards they found better satisfaction from himself and then gave an account of their faith not by her voice but because they had seen him And as for miracles which were spoken of to be part of St. Austin's authority he thinks they were no unassured step it is easily answered that however this doth derogate from the application of that Text to the authority onely of the Church since the authority he speaks of is not onely of the Church But Secondly miracles when they are received are an argument to confirm the truth but miracles are not to us an assured step because we are not certain of them to be true Since we hear in Scripture of lying wonders 2 Thes 2.9 10. So that the doctrine rather proves the miracle than the miracle the doctrine The doctrine is to be believed without a miracle but the miracle is not to be believed when the doctrine is false as Deut. 13. v. 1 2 3 4 5. But then as to the reading of that place in St. Austin somewhat more may be said It is true that in an edition of Ba sil 529. it is Certo but yet there is some marke with it to note a Criticism in a various lection In two other editions it is gradu incerto But also we except against the Latin in the grammer of it if it be read his way for where will they finde the verbe innitor to govern an ablative Nitor doth but innitor doth not And in reading Stapleton's relections I finde he useth innitor with a Dative Therefore may it be probable that our reading is the right and that the in changed its place and in stead of gradu incerto nitentâ—â— it was made gradu certo innitentes N. 37. In this he resumes the speech upon the authority of the Devil when he saies any thing conformable to Scripture To this I said more then was necessary Another would have sent it back to the place from whence it came But that which I said liberally he exagitates disingenuously I answered first that we are forbidden to consult with the Devil but are injoyned to consult with the Church To this he rejoyns this hinders not his being conformable as long as he speaketh conformably to Scripture Repl. This was proposed by him to presse us to the use of the Church therefore that which was said by me properly made a difference betwixt them because we are to take direction from one not from the other even for those things which we know he knowes most certainly Therefore though there be no difference in the matter of truth as to both yet there is as to the immediate Authour And I granted to them ever that the Church to be consulted with ever is the Church as visible Yet doth it not from hence follow I hope that it should be allwaies so visible as that we can consult with it The visible Church is ever to be consulted with but this visible Church is not ever so visible visible at sometimes not so visible at all times For there was not allwaies in the Church a Pope and Council and if a Pope not a Council by their own confession And in such cases they have said before that the Church must content it self with former determinations And though that which is infallible may be orderly consulted with yet not all that is to be consulted with is not surely infallible Every Priest is not infallible I think they will say and yet is to be consulted My Second answer is of the same kind and that which he saies would be of some weight if we granted not such use to be made of the Church as thereby to think well of that which is proposed but the certainty of faith is cui non potest subesse falsum this is not to be given to the Church simply As for the Third answer we say easily there is no comparative in negatives neither is the one nor the other infallible though I am more moved by the one whom we have reason to respect the Church than the other whom we have reason to suspect So then that which is apprehended true is considerable
us a direct way that fools cannot erre by it For we see with our eyes whole Thousands of Men very wise and Learned whilst they follow the Scriptures with all sincerity as they most solemnly protest from their heart to follow a world of quite contrary ways in matter of highest Importance to Salvation and consequently all these Multitudes of wise men but those who go one only of these wayes must needs go astray Now if wise Men in so great Multitudes do so strangely stray whilst in all sincerity as they protest they follow this way how is it true that fools cannot erre by it Doth not St. Austin and all the greatest Doctors that ever the Church had profess themselves unable to understand the Scriptures and this after many years study in them and how then can men of such ordinary Capacities and of so mean study and knowledg of those tongues in which the Scriptures were written and so great variety of Opinions about the true Canon of Scriptures and a far greater variety about the true Interpretation of so many most Important places of the true Canon of Scripture come to know the truth the Infallible and undoubted truth and this so assuredly that they may with a safe Conscience upon their private Judgment of discretion settle their faith unmoveably in points which they know to be so mightily called into doubt by the greater Part of the world yea that whole General Councels have unanimously defined the Contrary and believed those places of Scripture not to say that to be so which for those places of Scripture they still say and firmly believe to be so Is not such a belief mainly to be suspected even in the wisest and learnedst Men And will you then say still that this is A direct way unto us so that fools cannot erre by it The contrary will yet appear far more clearly when you shall have pondered the ensuing reasons yet take this for one strong reason why the Scriptures cannot be that Judge of Controversies who is to direct us by a way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it The second Reason to prove the Scriptures not to be this Judge is this There be many Controversies and may be yet very many more most nearly concerning the necessary Means to Salvation which can never be ended and undoubtedly decided by the Judgment and sentence to the Scriptures I will alledge several convincing Examples For a Controversie may be moved concerning the lawfulness of working or not working upon Saturdayes and Sundayes How will this Controversie be decided by the Scriptures All the old Scriptures command strictly the not working upon Saturdayes and no One single word of the New Scripture doth assure us that this Command was ever by Lawful Authority taken away or that there is the least unlawfulness in working upon the Sunday We know indeed that there was such a day as the Lords day called by that name because Saint John had a vision upon that day as he had also upon many other dayes We know St. Paul preached upon the first day of the week and so he did upon many other dayes and most upon the Saturday or Sabboth For He disputed in the Synagogue every Sabboth and the exhorted the Jews and the Greeks Act. 18. We know the first day of the week was at one time appointed for the gathering of Almes for poor Christians But how doth this or any of the former Places prove the Commandement of not working on the Saturday to be taken quite away and that undoubtedly Or how do any of these places impose upon All Christians a manifest and unquestionable Obligation of not working on Sundays And yet this is All that can be said out of the Scriptures for the undoubted abolishing of a certain Commandement of God and the undoubted bringing into the place of it a New Commandement without perhaps the Rising onely of our Saviour on the Sunday be sufficient to prove both these things undoubtedly Yet how can this be For the day of his Ascension into Heaven was the final period of all he did in the world and that day was Thursday The Resurrection indeed might be a Ground for such a Change but it is nowhere in Scripture that such a Change was made on that Ground Yea if we stand even to the New Scriptures our Adversaries the Jews will be too hard for us For they will tell us that according to our Scriptures when our Saviour was asked Mat. 19. What good shall I do that I may have life Everlasting our Saviour said If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandements And when that Man replyed to know what Commandement he did understand he clearly told him that he understood the Commandements of the Decalogue Those very Commandements which that Man knew well enough as it is said clearly also in St. Mark 10. Luke 18. You see here will a Jew or some new Sectary say unto us that even in our new Law our own Law-maker with his own mouth commandeth as a thing necessary to enter into life Everlasting the keeping of the Commandements of the Decalogue which that Man did know Therefore he in the New Law commanded that Commandement of keeping the Saturday to be observed as well as the rest And St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.19 Circumcision is nothing and Prepuce is nothing but the Observation of the Commandements of God See here St. Paul even after Circumcision was declared nothing to declare the Commandements of God to stand in force and yet among these Commandements a chief one is the keeping of the Saturday or seventh day on which God rested which reason also holdeth still for still it is true that God rested on the seventh Day and he blessed the seventh Day and sanctified it for the foresaid Reason How came this Sanctification and Blessing to be lost the reason of it being still as good as ever And why then will this Jew or Sectarist say should we prefer the keeping of any other day before this which hath so good a Reason that you cannot give a better at least undoubtedly better and which hath so manifest Authority of the Old and of the New Scriptures even Three of the four Evangelists and also in St. Paul whereas for the taking away of this Commandement or for the not working on the Sunday there is not one single Place in all the Bible much lesse such a place as manifestly convinceth This Argument is unanswerable to those who make the Scriptures the sole Judge of Controversies Again these Jews and new Sectaries will presse us that our own Scriptures which we hold onely to be our Judge in all Controversies do cleerly tell us that even in the New Law it is said Act. 15. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and us Apostles of the New Law to lay no further burthen upon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols and blood and that which
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
also confesse yet I also say that this Church of Christ must be confessed to be Infallible But withall I would have every one know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawful General Councel cannot erre for it is no necessary Article of Faith to believe that the Pope or head of the Church cannot erre when he defineth without a General Councel Now that this definition of a whole General Councel is Infallible ought not to seem strange to any Christian for who can think it strange that Christ for the secure direction of the first Christians whom the Apostles converted should give this Infallibility to all and every one of the Apostles and that he should regard so little the secure direction of all other Christians who were to be from the Apostles time to the end of the world that for their sakes for the secure direction of their Souls he would not give this Infallibility so much as to one Man no not to all the Prelats of Christianity assembled together with their head to define matters most necessary and in which all error would be most pernicious who I say could think this strange especially being this gift of Infallibility is given not for their private sakes to whom it is given but for the universal good and necessary direction concord and perpetual unity of the whole Church You must acknowledge that he gave Infallibility of Doctrine to all those who did write any small part of the Old or New Scripture He gave it to David though he was an Adulterer he gave it to Solomon who proved not only a most vicious Man in Life but who for his own person in point of Faith came to fall into Worshipping of Idols This you will not have thought strange but you will hold it Incredible that he should give this Infallibility not to one Man but the whole Church represented in a General Councel Let us passe on further yet and see how firmly this Infallibility is grounded I have above shewed how strongly it is grounded on those words of God promising a Holy way a way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it See here the third Number In the eight Number I have shewed that we cannot ground that Faith by which we believe the Sabbath to be changed to the Sunday upon Scripture but we must ground it upon the Tradition of the Church which if it be not Infallible we have no Infallible Ground at all for this point And in the ninth Number I have shewed the self-same to be about eating Blood or Chickens or any thing that is strangled In the 11 12 and 13. Number I have demonstrated that by the Scripture we cannot know which is true Scripture which is false which Books be Infallibly the Word of God which not for the Scripture hath not one Text in which it telleth us this and therefore for this Important point of Faith we can finde no other sure Ground then the Tradition of an Infallible Church for a fallible Tradition may deceive us In the 14. Number I have shewed that when Controversies arise as most and most Important Controversies do arise about the true meaning of the Scripture even after we have conferred all places together and looked upon the Original Languages the the Controversies still remain undecided and no Infallible way can be found to decide them by Scripture There is therefore no Infallible way to decide them if the decision and definition of the whole Church in a General Councel be not Infallible This is so clear that to the wonder of the world Luther himself in his Book of the Power of the Pope writeth thus We are not certain of any private Man that he hath the Revelation of the Father The Church alone it is of which it is not lawful to doubt So he In the 15. Number I have shewed that there be many points necessarily to be believed under pain of damnation which points are not at all set down in any clear Scripture For these points it is manifest that we can have no other ground then the Authority of the Church If this be not Infallible then we have onely fallible ground which cannot be a ground of Faith In the 16. Number I have confirmed the same Doctrine by the Authority of Saint Austin and Saint Chrysostome In the 17. Number I have proved this Doctrine clearly out of Gods Promise that he would build this his Church upon a Rock and that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it which the Gates of Hell might easily do if the Church could come to teach damnable errors carrying her and her Children into the Gates of Hell it self The same in the same place I have proved by Gods commanding us to Tell the Church and commanding us to hold all those who will not hear the Church as Publicans and Heathens and by making good in Heaven the Sentence of the Church given upon Earth which he would not do if the Church should have at any time failed in her definition and that in points damnably erroneous In the 18. Number I have alledged other Texts still proving the same In the 19. Number I have shewed that for two Thousand years together before the Scriptures were written the true believers had no other sure ground of their Faith but the Authority of the Church which if it had been fallible the very ground of their Faith had been groundlesse and none at all The first Believers also and many whole Nations had no other ground then the said Authority of the Church as there I have shewed out of Saint Irenaeus and it is clear of it self for they did not build their Faith on any Scriptures Thus far I have gone already in the proof of the Infallibility of the Church Now I go on with those words of Saint Paul 1 Tim. 3. v. 15. where the Church of the living God is called The Pillar and Ground of Truth 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 Yea my Adversary having found a place in St. Irenaeus calling the Scripture the Foundation and Pillar of Faith doth infer that if it be so then it is the ground and cause of our faith If this consequence be strong which I deny not then is it yet a stronger that the Truth is no where surer grounded then upon the Pillar and Foundation of Truth But my Adversary would take this place of St. Paul from me because he saith This expression may very reasonably be referred not to the Church but to the mystery of Godlyness and so be an Hebrew form c. Surely he forgot that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew but in Greek and then again No Hebrew form in the world can make the sense he intends What can be
ever Now of no Kingdome in the world but of the Kingdome of Christs Church this can be understood This Church therefore shall stand for ever And consequently at no time it shall fall into damnable errors for then it is true to say It doth not stand but is faln most damnably Again in Isaiah 29. God doth clearly declare his Covenant with his Church according to the Interpretation of Saint Paul himself Rom. 11.26 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee and the words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of 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 But how could the Word of the Lord more depart from the Mouth of the Church then if she should with her mouth teach damnable errors From this therefore he secureth his Church for ever and ever Hence Saint Austin saith l. de Unitat. Eccl. cap. 6 7 12 13. See him also l. 20. de Civit. cap. 8. in Psalm 85. de Utilit Credendi c. 8. Whosoever affirmeth the Church to have been overthrown as it were if at any time it should teach any damnable error doth rob Christ of his glory and Inheritance bought with his precious Blood yea Saint Hierom cont Lucifer c. 6. goeth farther and averreth that He that so saith doth make God subject to the Devil and a poor miserable Christ The reason is because this Assertion doth after a sort bereave the whole Incarnation Life and Passion of our Saviour of their Effect and End which was principally to found a Church and Kingdome in this world which should endure to the day of Judgement and direct Men in all Truth to Salvation Wherefore whosoever affirmeth the Church to have perished taketh away this effect and Prerogative from his Incarnation Life and Passion and avoucheth that at some times Man had no means left to attain to everlasting blisse which is also repugnant to the Mercy and goodnesse of God He also maketh God subject to the Devil in making the Devil stronger then Christ and affirming him to have overthrown Christs Church and Kingdome which our Lord promised should never be conquered That the Holy Fathers did believe the Church of Christ to be Infallible and of an Authority sufficient to ground Faith upon appeareth by their relying onely upon her Authority in the chiefest Articles of Faith which is to believe such and such Books are the true Word of God and upon this onely ground they ground this their Faith as in the 12. Number I have shewed Saint Athanasius Saint Hierome Saint Austin Tertullian and Eusebius to have received such Books for Gods Word and to have not received others and to have received such with veneration of Divine Authority as St. Austin spoke And upon this infallible Authority they all believed God the Father not to be begotten God the Sonne to be begotten by his Father onely and to be Consubstantiall to him and God the Holy Ghost not to be begotten but to proceed from both Father and Son Upon this infallible Authority they all held children to be baptized though nothing for certain could be alledged out of the Canonical Scriptures in this point but onely the Catholique Church taught this to be done as in the 16th Numb have shewed out of St. Austin who there calleth this relying on the Churches Authority The most true inviolable Rule of Faith And S. Chrysostome there also saith that these unwritten Traditions of the Church infallible onely in her Authoritie are as worthy of faith and credit as that which is written in Scripture And in the 19th Numb I have shewed out of St. Irenaeus That we should have bin as much obliged to believe although no Scriptures had been written as we are now and that the faith of whole Nations is grounded not in Scripture but consequently on the infallible Authority of the Church whose word he calleth the Word of God as I shewed in the end of the 22th Number I summe up all these Authorities that my Adversary may not say as he did that the authority of St. Austin was single when he believed the Gospel to be Gods Word upon the infallible authority of the Church for if her authority be by so many Fathers acknowledged infallible then St. Austin is not single in his opinion in this point But because that place of St. Austin speaketh home and because my Adversary saith That if we take this passage by it self it seemeth to speak high but saith he if we consider the tenour of Saint Austins discourse in the whole chapter It is like we will begin to think that it came from him in some heat of spirit to overcome his Adversary For these causes I say I will consider the tenour of St. Austins Discourse in this whole Chapter and I will shew manifestly that this his Doctrine was so far from coming out from him in some heat of Spirit to overcome his adversary that he maketh it the very prime Ground of his discourse and without he will stand to that Ground he there must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary This Chapter is the fourth Chapter Cont. Ep. Manichaei The whole substance of it is this The Epistle of Manichaeus beginneth thus Manichaeus the Apostle of Jesus Christ by the Providence of God the Father I ask therefore saith Saint Austin who this Manichaeus is You will answer the Apostle of Christ I do not believe it Perhaps you will read the Gospel unto me endevouring thence to prove it And what if you did fall upon one who did not as yet believe the Gospel what would you do then if such an one said I do not believe you This is his first Argument to shew that his Adversary by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle could prove nothing against those who as yet have not believed the Gospel then he goeth on But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel and so this Answer cannot serve me notwithstanding I must tell you that I am such an one that I would not believe the Gospel without the Authority of the Catholick Church did move me This being the ground of his Answer you shall see how he builds upon this and onely this Ground It followeth then thus I having therefore obeyed those Catholique Pastors saying Believe the Gospel the most Important point of Points Why should I not obey them saying to me do not believe Manichaeus Then upon this ground he presseth home saying Chuse which you will if you say believe the Catholiques then I must not believe you for they teach me not to give Faith to you wherefore believing them as I do I cannot believe you Now if you say do not believe the Catholiques then you do not go consequently to force me by the Gospel to give Faith to Manichaeus
many have differed from themselves Is then this the way that fools cannot erre If wise men go this way surely this is their first errour that they go this way wherein nothing is found but perplexities and unsatisfiednesse Neither can they soberly raise the credit of their Doctrine by prime descent without interruption from the Apostolique age if all be well considered Such a confidence let me give a check to by application of a storie A Christian Prince was much seduced by a kind of men who professed a vast Art of giving a certain account of many Ages before and a trifling Courtier perceiving his humour made him believe that his Pedegree in antient race of Royal Blood might be fetched from Noah's Ark wherewith he being greatly delighted forthwith laid aside all businesse and gave himself to the search of the thing so earnestly that he suffered none to interrupt him whosoever no not Embassadours which were sent to him about most weighty affairs Many marvelled hereat but none durst speak their mind till at length his Cook whom he used sometimes as his Fool told him that the thing he went about was nothing for his honour for now saith he I worship your Majestie as a God but if we go once to Noahs Arke we must there your self and I both be akinne This the Storie which is so long that it reacheth you from top to toe for you would by a verie long series derive your authoritie as it were from Noahs Arke which you think represents your Church out of which there is no salvation You would run it up from verie many successions to the times of the Apostles and nothing will content you but this ancient Original You lay aside all other proofs in comparison of this succession not so much of Doctrine indeed as of Church Embassadours that are sent to you with Scripture you will not hear unlesse your Church may have the power of Interpretation infallibly in your own cause But let some of the Popes servants whom he makes his Fools inform him that that which he goes about is little for his Honour for now they worship him as a God but if they come to the times of the Apostles there will be found no such distance betwixt him and others and consanguinitie of Doctrine as it is expressed will be able to disinherit your points of difference formerly named with invocation of Saints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where doe we finde them Where may we read them Therefore urge not Antiquitie unlesse Truth goes along with it on your side and do not any more strain the consent of ages for Doctrines which as we may speak will be out of breath long before they come to that mightie height of the Apostolique time As for your instance of Saint Cyprian erring by perswasion of that which he held to be Scripture and St. Austins Crisis of his errour I Answer First You see here Saint Cyprian a Prime Doctor of the Church did then ground his Opinion upon Scripture without recourse to Tradition And this makes for us that he thought it no injurie to the Church to varie from what was held or practised upon respect to Scripture He undertook to think and doe otherwise then Christendome then in the point of Rebaptization and yet was not accused as an Heretique Secondly He erred groslie and yet not dangerouslie because he held his Opinion without malignance to the Church and so may we without peril of salvation And if you say the case is different betwixt him and us because that point wherein he went not with the Church was not then defined by a Council We answer what shall we say then of the times in the Church before there was any Council and therefore in those times the Rule of Faith and Action was without a Council and therefore this answer doth not satisfie or they were ruled only by Scripture which may satisfie you Thirdly He erred not in the substance of the Act when he pleaded Scripture but in the misapplication of Scripture to that case and therefore this Argument comes to the fallacie of accident and this makes no prejudice against Scripture which in it self is contrary to errour without defectibilitie and therefore he that indeed follows Scripture cannot erre because it is Infallible So cannot we say of the Church for ought yet we see by your Discourse Fourthly This makes no more disadvantage to the prerogative of Scripture then that the Pelagians for their Opinions urged the Testimonies of the Fathers which caused Saint Austin to make an Apologie for them Vobis Pelagianis when you Pelagians were not yet born the Fathers spake more securely namely of the power of nature Nay surely it makes a great deal lesse for the Father if in this he had followed the Fathers whom the Bitagians quoted had erred not by his Interpretation of them but it seems by their inconfideratenesse But we cannot charge Scripture with any such fault and therefore Saint Cyprian erred by misinterpretation And here also by the way we see how fallible a rule is the consent of the Fathers since if Saint Austin had ordered his belief thereby he had been overtaken with Pelagianisme Now as for Saint Austins crisis concerning this of Saint Cyprian that if he had lived to see the Determination of a plenary Council he would for his great humilitie and charitie straightway have yielded and preferred the General Council before his judgement to this besides what we now said about the undefinednesse of it by a Council we say It is like he would have yielded and this yet accrews not unto your cause much For first Saint Austin sayes for his great humilitie and charitie he would have yielded And this manner of Expression you may perceive doth abstract from a necessitie of duty Under bond of Duty these vertues have no freedome He was so humble of mind that he would have thought better of them he was so charitable that for this he would have offended none in this case but doth this infer that he was bound in conscience to sink his Opinion in the authoritie of their Definition No no. Humilitie and Charitie have in them no formalitie influxive unto Faith for this is seated in the understanding but to peace Therefore this yielding of his supposed upon the Case would have onely concerned his person as not to have opposed here not his judgement as if this should necessarily have been overcome by their Authority For the person may be bound when the Conscience cannot be bound so may the person yield as to the omission of opposite acts when the understanding yet keeps its former due apprehension Secondly this businesse of Saint Cyprian is such as is a matter of practice not clearly decided by Scripture but this avails not to an universal conclusion of ruling our faith by the Church which although you at the beginning did seem to wave yet here would in your discourse insinuate and wind in The summe of
it to be noted that herein he followed the authoritie of the Churches Notwithstanding which Saint Jerome as before did not receive them which makes a sufficient reason to hold that the authority of the Churches is not a sufficient ground of faith in the belief of Canonical Books or else St. Jerome who in this may be compared with St. Austin for his judgement is in the same condemnation with us Afterwards you plead that since the Gospel of S. Matthew was written in Hebrew whereof there is not extant any one Copy in the world and it is not certain who or how faithfully he did translate it we cannot be certain by the Scripture that this is the word of God therefore by the Church This I think is the sum of your plea. We answer First Again we do not disclaim the use of the Catholique Churches in the credence of the Word of God but this doth not certifie us Secondly You Catholiques as you would be called speak largely that not one of the Ancients conceived it to be written in Greek surely all the Ancients did not write surely all that did write are not now had But take it of all that did write and are now extant and put it to be so that all were of Saint Jeromes Opinion in his Preface upon Saint Matthew yet all that you say is not certainly true that there is not a Copy of the Hebrew Gospel extant in all the world For not to speak of the Hebrew Gospels set out by Munster and Mercer which Ludovicus de Dieu takes notice of in the Preface to his Notes upon the Gospels if you will give any heed to your Isidor Clarius he will tell you I suppose otherwise when he saith in a little Preface which is a Testimonie out of Saint Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastick writers that St. Jerome there affirms ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodiè in Casariensi Bibliotheca which Pamphilus the Martyr studiosissimè confecit and that he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans who in Beroea City of Syria do use this volume to describe it So he Now it may be that remains there and therefore you cannot be certain of what you say And this is more then an ordinary Authority of the Church in an interpretation Again how come your Latin interpretation of this Gospel to be authentique if it was not taken out of an authentick copie for the Church can doe no more then declare that which is authentique then must it be authentique otherwise they make Scripture Again let me give you one intimation that possibly so might yet at first be written in Greek my reason is this in the first of Saint Matthew 23. verse it is said of Christ they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is God with us If it were written in Ebrew what need of any interpretation in the same Language since the Letters of the Word put together without any variation do make that signification Again if the Church hath made the Greek Translation authentique why is your Latin made authentique Is there two authentiques If it be not authentique by the Church what would you infer Again the harmony of it with other Gospels hath more in it to perswade Faith then the credit of the Church Again if it be an Interpretation yet unlesse you do evince it that we do build our Faith upon the Interpretation you do nothing Now then as your people do fix their Faith upon that which is interpreted not up-upon the interpretation so may we build our belief upon this Gospel to be the Word of God by the illumination of the Spirit of God and yet not upon the Translation The Translation doth but conveigh unto our knowledge the words but it is the Spirit of God that doth work in us belief thereof that it is the VVord of God The Translation attends the Notification of the object what that is which is to be believed but it is the Divine perswasion which attends the act and is the cause why it is believed the Interpretation is but the Instrument of Faith the ground of it is the perswasion of God that it is the Truth and VVord of God and therefore your argumentation goes upon a wrong supposition as if we resolved our Faith in the Translation as such And what you except afterwards against the certainty of our Faith upon the account of the Greek Translation doth also return easily upon you for the same possibility of error is urged against your Latin either by ignorance or negligence or on purpose for the upholding of your new opinions And let me ask you why you account your Latin to be Authentique you will say because the Church of Rome was infallibly assisted in it VVas it then Infallibly assisted when it renders the Ebrew in Genesis ipsa for ipsum that it might be for the honour of the Virgin VVell but give it that the Latin was infallibly made by the Church why not the Greek also infallibly made by the Church and more confirmed by the Church then your Latin one you get nothing then by this exception And this may satisfie you how a Manichaan might believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew which you put to the question An opinion thereof he may have by the judgement of the Church some knowledge of it to be the Word of God he may gather by the agreement with the other Gospels but the Faith of it to be such is to be wrought by the Spirit of God whereby those who heard the Apostles were caused to believe that which they preached to be the Word of God without perswasion of the Church which was not then in a body when some first believed As for the Fathers holding Books to be Canonical by the Church we have spoken to already in this paper and we shall meet with it again You speak indeed of them as in general upon designe ad faciendum populum but you do not name the places onely Saint Athanasius you are pleased to quote VVe answer if you mean that he received the Gospels and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas upon the Authority of the Church as the cause of his Faith of them you do not prove it by what he saies If you mean that he was induced to think well of them by the reception of the Church and to refuse the other by their refusal this doth not come home to the question And suppose the Church its refusal of the Gospel of Saint Thomas was sufficient for him to refuse it too yet doth it not follow that because the Church did receive the other Gospels he received them no otherwise then because they did for this makes the reception of the ChurCh to be but as a necessary condition not the formal cause of his Faith As for Tertullians and Saint Jeroms and St. Austins authorities in this case we shall finde an answer when you quote the places The Testimony of Eusebius which you produce
need then of an infallible Judge since in points of question simple errour is not damnative and where indeed shall we have an infallible Judge if there be fallibility in any particular If the Spirit of God speaks in the Church by infallible assistance cannot the Spirit of God infallibly determine all points or if it assists infallibly only to material Articles which are necessary then do you give us a list of your Fundamentals And also for Fundamentals we need not such a Judge having them with sufficient plainnesse in Scripture which is Infallible Upon the whole matter then there is a possibility of their erring without Infallibility and of our erring without damnation So that your first error is an Infallibility of a Judge the second the necessity of such a Judge and a third is this that no Church can prudently be held to be the Catholick Church but the Roman But ought we not to disturb your delight you take in holding a Religion prudently prudently as if we were to choose a Religion by interesse which prudence doth rather direct to not by sapience of the highest speculative principles which direct the understanding but to let that passe We onely note hereby your pronouncing this main Text for the Authority of the Church that what Authority it hath must be resolved into Scripture then is that the first and highest principle That the center of Truth wherein we must rest and the further we go from that the further from Truth And the greater circumference we draw the lines are the remoter from that wherein we must acquiesce as being the Word of God Yet you say here we see the Judge which Christ hath warranted from bringing in any damnable error therefore may we securely obey So you But where is your connexion in this argumentation Either you distinguish damnative error against that which is not damnative or not If not then in your opinion all error is damnative then take you heed of this for this is one Or if you do distinguish it against error damnative yet may we not securely obey this Judge because then we may be bound to obey him in an 〈◊〉 and so should the understanding be obliged to assent to error which is impossible and he must act against his Conscience even in his assent which is a contradiction And that none may disobey this judge securely the Text you bring Matth. 18.17 will not evince to your pâ—â—pose For first it concerns matters of Trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother not matters of Faith and thus it is Eccentrical to your â—esigne Secondly It concerns refractorinesse of the person not unbelief of the Understanding and so the Authority of the Church may binde against the former though not against the latter Thirdly It respects Excommunication by censure not determination of a point by Infallibility and so also is not proper to your cause And fourthly It may erre in the Censure and therefore Excommunication eo ipso doth not damne as Unbelief may Neither am I bound to believe the Censure is just unlesse it appears to be so Fifthly This power belongs to every particular Church and to the several Prelates thereof as you speak also in the number of multitude and therefore is not appropriated to your Church Sixthly It doth not follow a fortieri as you would have it nor yet at all that because the Church is to judge of private complaints therefore it can judge infallibly in causes of greater importance by its authority it doth the former without Infallibility it does not the latter The former of them doth not conclude against me and the latter cannot be from hence collected As for that which followes Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven as far as it regards Excommunication must be also taken specificatively clave non errante as they speak And this toucheth the person unto the submission not the Conscience as to renounce that which it apprehendeth as true for then should Athanasius have been bound in Conscience by the Censure of the Church to have been an Arrian Then from the peril of disobedience to this judge you gather that this must supposse the judge not to be fallâ—ble in such prime causes as must concern the Church and all such causes are those which may bring 〈◊〉 damnable errors So you in the â—nd of that Number But your premises being destroyed your Conclusion is ruinous and yet also you do not conclude punctually according to an Eleâ—ch for you conclude it not fallible in prime causes of main importance but you should in your proof conclude it not fallible in any thing for if it be fallible in any thing wherein the error is not damnative then you doe not conclude it infallible Yea though it should not erre actually in any decision yee followeth not from hence that it is infallible For Infallibility excludes all error in whatsoever iâ— doth propose or decree and also the possibility of error Therefore prove it thus and then an infallibility of our knowledge of it and infallibly what is the subject of this Infallibility and then I shall stand up to your Creed And if you would go the right way in this dispute you should use another method for whereas you would argue the Church to be the judge which we cannot safely disobey if you could make this sure which yet is not done yet you should rather goe this way synthetically the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define therefore it is the Judge which we ought to obey in all things whatsoever it 〈◊〉 out but your discourse from uncertain decisions and inconveniences doth not bespeak any credence of your infallibility much lesse of our knowledge thereof Now we follow you into your eighteenth paragraph And here we meet with St Austins suffrage in his 20. de â—in cap. 9. where he comments upon these words of Rev. â—â— 4 I fanâ— throâ—â— and they sate upon them and judgment was given them So the testimony And what from hence Because the Praeposits judge on earth therefore infallibly then every Church which hath Praeposits should be Infallible Doth this follow we deny not their Iudicature but their Infallibility Conclude thus or you agree with us Then you â—â—y to the Old Testament Mal. 2.7 For the Priests lips shall keep knowledge and they shall require the law from his mouth So you And you note besides a great corruption in our English which rendreth the words the Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law We need not answer that this Text hath nothing for you Is it meant of the Priests at Rome If not how belongeth it to you but to the Priests of the Church â— what an general what then do you get by this Secondly They keep Knowledge sufficiently for the people Do they keep it Infallibly If not we are agreed If infallibly how are the Priests taxed in the following words for not doing so And if the
formality of speech doth import a promise in the future not a duty in the Subjunctive yet the promise doth not include an impossibility of error no more then the promise made to your Church as you suppose doth exclude all error but that which is destructive Thirdly The future in the Hebrew doth not contradict a subjunctive in the interpretation when the scope bears it since the Hebrews as you may know have no proper Subjunctive And it is proper to the scope to understand it as of duty they should keep knowledge whereupon â—â—ey are charged for breach of duty therefore our Interpretation in this is more sound then your dispute upon it And therefore that which you say in your 19. Number that any man may ask the Priests of the Church what is the Known Doctrine of the Church then let him rest securely when he knowes that that is unreasonable because the Priests are not Infallible May he not rest more securely in Scripture for the Church in all things is not as before infallible the Scripture is in all which it proposeth but the Church you say is not in danger of taking in any damnative error Well but the Scriptures sets out none at all but all things are not determined in Scripture Well but all things are not determined in the Church but all things necessary are taught in the Church which may keep us from damnative error Well and are not all things necessary taught in the Scripture why then not to the Law and Testimony why to the Cistern when we may have it at the Fountain why not to the Scripture particularly when what Authority the Church hath it hath from the Scripture in general and why doth your Church take away from the people the use of Scripture and why may not we be informed as sufficiently by our Priests as you by yours notwithstanding this Text especially since we go by Scripture you by Tradition or humane definition And if the Priests of yours were Infallible can you say Infallibly that they will not deceive you How miserably then do you provide for the poor people when you would have them require at their mouth not the Law of God but the Doctrine of the Church That which comes on in the same Number about Tradition before Scripture was answered before it was written The Word in the Substance of it was before the Church which was begotten by it and when there is now as much need and as great certainty of Tradition as formerly then urge it And I thank you for Saint Irenaeus's Testimony I do not lye at catch but the most convincing dispute is by our Adversaries principles not the Fathers but yours as you apply them for we can make very good use of his words If the Scripture had not been left to us we should have had Tradition more certainly conveyed to us as the Gospel was before it was written and this confirmes for me what was said before but now I assume the Scripture is now left to us therefore is there no need of certain conveyance of Tradition to us Surely you have a minde to help us for your own good Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations you speak of did rely onely upon Tradition they might be commended to the doctrine of the Gospel by Tradition and then not believe it for the sake of Tradition for this is the state of the question Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten is of equal authority to Scripture Secondly If you say Salvation was written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost this may be meant to be done not onely beside Scripture but besides Tradition and thus was it done extraordinarily But why Thirdly Might not the Holy Spirit infuse Faith of the Gospel into those Nations by some of those who were Apostles or sent from them to Preach it and then the Tradition you speak of is the matter of the Gospel which is written and so it doth not appertain to the question of Traditions of proper name which you say are beside that which is written though not against it and then your discourse is fallacious from that which is the object of the Gospel delivered to that which is beside it delivered which ambiguity of the word Tradition if it doth deceive you yet doth it not consequently deceive me but if you mean Tradition here onely of the manner of communicating the matter of Scripture without writing then the former answer may satisfie you that Tradition was then more certain and they were more assured of it by the Spirit of God then we are now And also it might be to them as the Star to the Wise Men for leading them to Christ By the light of the Star they were guided to Christ but when they came to him they saw him not by the light of the Star but by the light of the Day so some might be directed to the Gospel by Tradition before they had the Scripture and then believed it by the light of Scripture You add also neither did the Apostles or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages as they could all or the greater part understand So you This is readily denyed for God did take care that the New Testament should for the most part of it at least be first written in Greek And the Greek you know in the notion of the New Testament is contradistinguished to the Jew because so many of the world besides the Jews were Greeks and the Greeks Language was the most common then and therefore saith Tully in his Oration for the Poet Archias Graeca per totum orbem leguntur And God by his gracious Providence hath taken care that the Scripture should be translated into divers languages as you may know that so several Nations might have it familiar to them in their own Tongue which must condemn your Church for not permitting of it ordinarily to the people in their own dialect and also doth conclude that Tradition is no Infallible provision for a rule of Faith for how shall the people undoubtedly know that the Traditions were clearly discerned true from them which were false and also that they were faithfully handed through so many Centuries to the present time And yet if so this would not be sufficient for your use unlesse you or others could finde these two points more one how to evade a Circle by proving the Traditions by the Church and the Church by the Traditions and the second this that those Traditions have Infallibly decided the differences betwixt us which the Antients did not professedly handle as having not provocations thereunto If any thing be touched by the by you may know the rule Aliud agentis parva autoritas In your 20. Number you make a recapitulation of what you think you have done and I think you have undone untill you come to Sixthly I have found a lawful Judge who can be informed of all Controversies
support against falling and therefore Isidor Clarius and Estius doe interpret it by firmamentum not fundamentum So the Church holds forth and holds up the Truth Therefore your meaning of Foundation above ground hath neither Foundation nor ground Secondly can you conceive and say that the Church is a Foundation of Truth comparatively to Scripture Is not the Scripture the Foundation of the Church The Scripture in the substance of the Word was before the Church because the Church was built upon it then the Scripture in the substance of it was the Foundation and is now being written And that which is the first Principle of all must be the Foundation of the rest and the further we go from it the lesse security we have because we go more into discourse which is uncertain Now the first Principle is Scripture not the Church because the Church is proved by Scripture and you proved even now or would have done the authority of it by Scripture The Church may give Testimony of the Scripture but the Scripture doth not onely give Testimony of the Church but doth ground it and constitute it and distinguish it and upon it it is built then this is the Foundation The Church is built upon the Scripture not the Scripture upon the Church As the Law hath it self to Justice so hath the Scripture it self to Faith Now the Law is the Foundation of Justice not the Judge so is the Scripture the Foundation of Faith not the Church which you say is the Judge For as the Judge is built upon the Law so is the Church upon Scripture And as the Judge is to go by the Law in his proceeding and sentence otherwise he erres so is the Church to go by the Law of Scripture otherwise it doth erre And as the Law is not to be proved it being the first Principle in Justice so is not the Scripture to be proved for it is the first principle in Faith But as the sentence of the Judge may be examined by Law so may the determinations of the Church be examined by Scripture since the Judge may erre and so may the Church But first prove that it hath not erred and then you will have another work to do to prove it cannot For the Faith of a Christian immediately is resolved into that which cannot deceive him And prove that it cannot erre and therefore is the infallible Judge or if you can prove it the back way it is the infallible judge therefore cannot erre Nextly You make some perstriction of my Criticisme if it may be so called and yet not mine neither but of others also whereby the termes the Pillar and Ground of Truth is referred to the commendation of the Mystery of Godlinesse after the Hebrew fashion to give these Praefaces of respect to so grand and sublime doctrines Here you are pleased to smile as if I had forgotten that this Epistle was written in Greek not in Hebrew and also you say no Hebrew form in the world can make that sense he intends Sir Will you please to give me leave to be even with you in a smile but no I have no minde to rejoyce in any mans imperfections Soberly I reply that I do well remember in what Language it was written and therefore I make it to be an Ebraisme in our use of the word which speaks a following of the Hebrew form in some other Language And he that doth not understand that there is many of these Ebraismes in the Greek of the New Testament doth not understand so much as I would desire And therefore that which you say that no Hebrew form can make my sense is not to be answered And to follow you although the Apostle had not spoken yet of Godlilinesse or the mystery of it might he not put this form of commendation in the front of the Doctrine of Godlinesse as as also in the first Epistle to Timothy 1 Tim. 1.15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ c. Neither have you any cause to object the reading of the words in our English since the distinction of Verses is not Canonical nor yet our English so accounted by us notwithstanding we have as much reason for it to make it as good as your Latin But your Adversary sayes you say that this Title of being the Pillar and ground of Truth agrees in the first place to Scripture Yes and so I do still and have shewed it so but you say it belongeth equally to any thing that is the true Word of God and therefore agreeth to the Scriptures because God speaketh in it and by it Right hold you there Rest your self here Set up your staffe here for you can go no further unlesse you will go up to Heaven and the Church Triumphant But God also speaketh by his Church and in his Church yes unto Authority not Infallibility and therefore that which followes remaines to be proved by you that he doth give as much Infallible assistance to the Church in a Council where is the Pope have you a minde to the opinion of the French Catholiques as he gave to him who did deliver his Word in Scripture It is utterly denyed And you may see plainly hereby how the Roman Tyranny over your Conscience as they would perswade you draws you necessarily into this perill of Blasphemy for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as Infallibly by his Church as in his Word And this some Pontificians do lean towards And then those by you should be called Enthusiasts not who oppose a private Revelation to Scripture but to the Church if God speaks as infallibly by his Church then speak no more against Enthusiasmes or if you do we shall tell you the story that one was accused to Alexander for being a Pirate so then said he that was accused to Alexander I am a Pirate with one Fly-boat and you are not because you have a Navy So the private men are by you accounted Enthusiasts because they have but their own singularities for their bottom but the Church of Rome is not to be charged therewith because they have so many with them And yet it may be if Infallibility were to be determined by Votes whether it did belong to the Words of God onely or also to the Word of the Church you would go neer to lose it for all Churches hold the Scripture Infallible and you too but no Church but the Roman holds the Church to be Infallible and then also you must assume that you are the Church otherwise you would not hold it Infallible You say again it is objected that in these words rather the office of the Church is set forth then her Authority To which you say your answer is clear that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out then by saying that she is the Pillar and Ground of Truth c. But the question is whether these words
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
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
Gods wise Dispensations to his Church then when there was no Word written he would provide that that whereby the Church should be ruled should be extraordinarily conveyed and preserved but now when there is a Word written which is a most sufficient ground of Faith as you confesse there is no such cause of any word beside it If the Scripture be a Rule of faith as you do liberally grant then this is now a rule not onely inclusively but exclusively for otherwise it is not as large as that which is to be ruled and then they will not agree in the nature of Relatives and so it will not be a Rule of faith and manners For indeed the propertie of a Rule doth not only exclude lesse but also more It speaks against adding to it as a Rule of faith and manners necessarie in themselves as well as against the negative of not ordering them by it But then again your former reasoning is inconcludent because God revealed himself to his Church severally before he revealed himself by his Church And therefore this was not the way universally holding namely by the Church even before the Scripture was written And therefore much lesse doth it now bind when the Word of God is written Shew the like inspirations to the Church as the Prophets had by some infallible way and then we shall say that thus saith the Lord absolutely undisputedly without possibilitie of contradiction by the mouth of the Church in whatsoever it pleaseth to assert for the truth of God to be believed equally to Scripture and then a Council is to be believed without Scripture as the Nicene you mean was not believed or to be believed without for it did determine by it and by that Text I named I and my Father are one which Saint Athanasius doth apply to that question foure times in that Epistle you named And if you can prove that Saint Peters successours as you imagine had that transient gift of immediate Revelation as Saint Peter had then ye might say Peter spake by the mouth of Leo as infallibly as God spake by his Then the Arrians had as good a plea for their opinion as Athanasius had for they urged the Council of Ariminum and more Councils as Athanasius mentions in the same Epistle if what is said by the Church must be true then Athanasius must have changed his Opinion Or if you will have alwayes the Pope to be put into the authoritie of the Church for an infallible definition binding the consciences of all Christians to believe it as Gospel then must we believe that what he defines is Infallibly true What because he cannot erre No more then those fourtie Popes which Bellarmin speaks of in his fourth Book De Rom. Pontif. from the 8. chapter to the 15. who have been as he said accused of errour and some whereof none can say that all the distinctions and provisions which have been devised for this purpose can possibly justifie Pope Zephyrine a Montanist then he erred if not a Montanist then Tertullian is not to be believed Liberius as before an Arrian so Athanasius so Jerome so Damasus of him and Damasus could not erre as you hold yet an Arrian is surely in errour is he not Honorius was erroneous too and he spoken of in a former paper he a Monothelite as Melchior Canus saith some Catholicks hold and he proves it by Synods the sixth the seventh the eighth and he proves it by Epistles of Popes if all there be deceived how shall we believe authoritie of man As for Gregory the Third Bellarmin in the 12. chapter of that book doth openly say Vel certe Pontificem ex ignorantia lapsum esse quod posse Pontificibus accidere non negamus So he Then do you reconcile errour by ignorance with Infallibility How is he like to be Infallible in all his definitions when he was ignorant in the Gospel and therefore gave a Dispensation to a man to take another wife if the former had a disease that made her not able for the conjugal debt And Alphonsus de Castro in his 1. book 4. chapter hath this passage Omnis enim Homo errare potest in fide etiam si Papa sit Nam de Liberio à Papa constat fuisse Arrianum Et Anasterium Papam fuvisse Nestorianis qui Historias legerit non dubitat and a little after Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent qui fit ut sacras Literas interpretari possent And how then shall we by your Head of the Church or any other severally or together know the undoubted sense of Scripture infallibly But many necessary places of Scripture do not as you imagin need a Judge or not infallible All things also necessary to be believed are set down in Scripture and the contrary you have not shewed and therefore is there no need of an infallible Judge for the former or tradition for the latter as I have shewed Neverthelesse you proceed thus The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her authoritie to be our ordinary cause of Faith So you Answer As you suppose much for your advantage without colour of reason so you confound much without distinction First the term Revelation hath two respects one to the Agent and so it refers to the act and manner thereof another to the matter of that which is revealed that is the object The Revelation of God taking it passively for the object the matter which is revealed comes to us by the Church because the Word written ordinarily comes to us by the Church But taking Revelation of God actively with respect to the manner to bear your sense that God doth reveal himself infallibly by the Church either in the case of Canonical books or of doubts about the sense of Scripture so it doth not come by the Church and therefore is it not the ordinary cause of Faith which must rely upon infallible veritie as Aquinas speaks in his first part first question eight answer and therefore as before doth rely upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets which wrote the Canonical books and not then upon the Church who was bound to receive these Books and to communicate them So that the Church is concluded to be as an instrument only or a motive of this faith an instrument by its office and a motive by its authority And as for declaring undoubtedly the sense of Scripture So is there not any necessity of a Judge infallible which you would have the Church to be Secondly you suppose that which is not to be supposed that by my words since in those cases the revelation of God comes to us by the Church I must grant her authority to be the ordinary cause of faith and you say also that by my words in this place I must grant so Surely you here do commit
Crimen falsi for I do not see upon the place any half Syllables out of which you may draw any such interpretative Confession I have often upon your occasion said the contrary that the authority of the Church cannot be the cause of faith And therefore whether you have any faith of the Articles of Religion or of Scripture in all your Church is more easie to be found then said And assuredly though we talk of faith in the world the greatest part of it is but opinion which takes religion upon the credit of man and not of Scripture And as for us we have also the authority of the Church Catholick to move our judgement and Scripture to settle our faith And we are more related to the foure General Councils in consanguinitie of Doctrine as he said then your Church now And now at the end of all you doe fairly rebate the edge of your censure of my Expression namely Excesse of Faith But you say my distinction doth no way salve the improprietie of my Speech For there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects But granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that sense it is not truely said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing that which God hath said So then by my Distinctions which is your School of Fides Subjectiva fides Objectiva fides Qua fides Quae there may be an Excesse of Faith in the Object if we beleive more then God hath said supposing we can believe what God hath not said although there be not an excess of faith in the Subject for we cannot have too much faith in that which is to be believed But the quarrel against the speech was not becacause it was not proper enough and congruous in this Discourse but because of the Application of it to you as it now appears and therefore here would you vindicate the Church in this upon the same ground of infallibilitie and therefore for your Faith in whatsoever you believe you have this Warrant Thus saith the Lord. But since this infallibilitie of yours you cannot have without begging of the question even to the last nor shall have it surely by begging you are yet to finde out some Expedience of Means or Arguments how to preserve your selves from that just charge of Excesse of Faith and the chief of that kind is that you speak of your infallibilitie for which you have not Thus saith the Lord. How then do you prove it by Tradition And how do you prove Tradition by the infallibility of the Church Therefore go not to Faith about by a circumference If you have a desire to rest your judgement and your soul in certain infallibilitie by your own word then center in Scripture from which all Lines of Truth are drawn and dismisse Tradition as your men state it for which this infallibilitie was devised and yet cannot be maintained for it cannot maintain it self You close with a passage of Saint Austin If so the words you intend it to set out your Charity to the Church of Christ not to perswade my Faith in its infallibilitie I may love the Church without infallibility because though I doe not love Errour yet must I love the Church when it is in Errour And this gives you occasion to think well of this respective and full answer to your last Paper Excuse me that it was so long ere it came and yet not much above the space of yours and also so long now it is come Onely let me leave you with a Father or two in whose company you are delighted Tertullian in his Prescript cap. 8. We have no need of Curiositie after Christ nor further Inquisition after the Gospell When we believe we desire to believe nothing beyond For this we first believe that there is not any thing beyond which we ought to believe Again against Hermog cap. 22. I adore the plenitude of Scripture And a little after Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina If it be not written let him fear that woe appointed for those who adde or take away And Saint Austin in his 2. book De Doc. Christiana cap. 9. In iis enim quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt Amongst those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture are found all those things which contain Faith and Manners of Living to wit Hope and Charitie For the excellent modification of Scripture in the 6. chapter Magnifice igitur salubriter Sp. Sanctus ita Scripturas Sanitas modificavit ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur And the same in the 7. chapter for the second Degree or step to Wisedome He saith Deinde opus est mitescere Pietate neque Contradicere Divinae Scripturae sive intellectae si aliqua vitia nostra percutit sive non intellectae quasi nos melius sapere meliusque percipere possimus sed cogitare potius credere id esse melius verius quod ibi scriptum est etiamsi lateat quam id quod nos per nos met-ipsos sapere possumus And again Saint Austin contra Literas Petit. Lib. 3. cap. 6. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit Si Angelus de Coelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis Anathema sit Consider what is said and the Lord give you understanding in all things To the Reader How in these times in which there be so many Religions the true Religion may certainly be found out 1. A Satisfactory Answer to this Title will alone put an end to the endless controversies of these dayes This made me think my labour well bestowed in treating this point somewhat largely And because that Treatise hath received a very large answer the examining of this answer will make the Truth yet more apparent That this may be done more clearly I will briefly tell you the Order I intend to observe in the examination of the said answer And because this answer directly followeth the same Order which I observed in treating the question prefixed in my Title Therefore when I have shewed you the Order of that Treatise you will clearly see that I shall most orderly answer the Reply against it 2. That Treatise had a short Preface to tell the intent of it My first Chapter must then be the Examination of what is said against this Preface Again that Treatise did shew five things First it did shew the necessity of a Judge to whom all are bound to submit Secondly That Scripture alone did not suffice to decide all necessary Controversies without a living Judge to
the 17. Numb Thirdly that this Judge could be no other then the true Church to the 21. Numb Fourthly that the true Church is infallible in her judging points of Faith to the 17. Numb Fifthly That this true Church which is our infallible Judge is the Roman Church to 29 and last Numb Lastly followed the Conclusion My answer therefore must have five more chapters to shew the Reply made against that Treatise to be unsatisfactory in every particular argument opposed against me in all these five points 3. There might have been added another chapter to examine what my adversary saith concerning the Conclusion of my Treatise But as he himself Page 112. observeth very well he might have spared his Reply against my Conclusion because it containeth no new thing appertaining to the main Controversie but it was made onely to shew that in the handling of the main Controversie I had answered all his paper which I did there run over in order And therefore in his answers to all I had said about the main Controversie he had given up his answers to all that which is onely run over again in the conclusion Neither know I any reason that I gave him to fansie as he saith he doth that I should either think a good cause wanting to him or him wanting to a good cause unlesse he had answered my Conclusion apart though something were in it not said before by me and some few things in which I charge him But Sir that which I stand upon is the main question and the proof or disproof of it Nor will I judge so hardly of you as to think you will conceive either my cause worse or me a worse defender of it because I tire not my self and my Reader with our personal debates when they concern not the main question in which both of us have been so large And so as you thought you might have ended when you came to that conclusion so I think I may well end when I have answered those hundred Pages and more which I met with before I come thither though there still remained something which concerned our private debates For if that which hath been said before doth not satisfie no great satisfaction will be added by going on a little further in the same strain in matters lesse to the matter The first CHAPTER The Answer to my Preface Confuted 1. YOur first words intimate that you fear least your silence should make me seem to my self or others to have got the Victory Sir your Reply is most welcome in this respect that it doth more help me then your silence could not to seem to have got but really to get that Victory which I desire not to my selfe but to truth For the examination of your Reply will serve for a Touch-stone to my Arguments I will follow you as you desire step after step and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. To shew the necessity of treating the matter I had undertaken I said that such a manner of reading the Scripture as is permitted by you to all sorts of people with so unlimited a Licence to interpret them according to their own private judgement of discretion as a thing most apt to cause a numberlesse number of Sects and Heresies A priori this is proved thus You permit any Artificer who can read to take the Bible into his hand and to take it for his sole and onely Iudge of all necessary Controversies And though all the force and efficacy of the words of Scripture consist in the true sence and sincere Interpretation of it yet when all comes to all you leave this Interpretation to be made by every Reader though never so unskilful with so great Latitude that though a General Council of the greatest Doctors which could be gathered together should have defined such and such a point for undoubted true Doctrine and to be held so according to Scripture yet you permit any Cobler to make a Review of this Decree and if he hearing all that can be said on the one side and on the other judgeth at last that the whole Councel hath erred in interpreting Scripture you leave him free to hold himself so strongly to his own interpretation as if it were the true sence of Gods Word neither will you hear of any Obligation which he hath interiorly to submit his judgement which is the seat of true faith or errour to any other Iudge upon earth For surely if he be left by your Principles so free in the choice of his interpretation of Scripture as not to be obliged to submit interiorly to a whole General Council he hath far greater freedom in not being obliged to submit to any other private Doctours Is not this to leave men in a mighty hazard of misunderstanding Gods Word and falling into Heresie Secondly the same is proved a posteriori 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 mean when he shall have heard or seen what can be alledged on all sides there and onely there Sects have multiplied and do multiply beyond measure 3. Neither do any of your arguments prove this not to be the true cause of Heresies and bad life which followeth Heresie First it is so far from being contrary to that Text You erre not knowing the Scripture that it is most agreeable to it For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of 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 especially being licensed to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority of the Church if these stand in their way And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding The knowledge of Scripture If the works of these famous Physitions Galen and Hipocrates were thrust into all Trades-mens hands and every one of them were licensed to interpret as they sincerely thought best would you call this The knowledge of Physick especially if every one might be permitted to hold his interpretation against a General Assembly of most learned Physitians Secondly you in vain object that of Saint Paul That the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation Far was it from the intention of Saint Paul to speak of the Scriptures interpreted by every giddy fansie for thus they may be the occasion of our damnation Saint Paul said they were able to make Timothie wise to salvation because he was a man who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of to wit by the Oral tradition of the Doctours of the Church A man knowing of whom he had learned these things and these traditions Let such men read Scriptures and let them with such interpretations understand them and they will make them wise to salvation and to continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church and never to
Sectaries agreeing with you in this point I understand not how you could say that none but we held a Judge infallible And indeed without an infallible guide every man might proceed as if your faith were fallible and so give an infallible assent to nothing I did never say that without such a judge we should be free to follow without any fault our private judgement in holding what we will as you insinuate but I said otherwise every man might be free to believe what he judged best and so we should have as many Religions as there be private and different judgements Had you put these my words you had not had a word to say But you thought good to put such words as you knew how to answer and to leave out my true words and to say nothing to the argument by which I proved them And so that argument still standing in force all that you say against your own saying is from the purpose 4. You adde that you doe not say we should follow our own judgement of discretion without means of regulating our judgements But mark how in the next words you take away all means for to take away all infallible means is to take away all means able to produce an infallible assent to faith to have us surely guided in matters of faith for you say yet after we have perused the Definitions of Councils we cannot resign up our assents to their Dictates upon their account but do examine as the Bereans did which Saint Paul said untill we can find them resolved into the infallible Rule of Holy Scripture So you far from the spirit of that great Saint Gregory who said Li. 1. Ep. 24. I do professe my self to reverence the first foure Councils as I reverence the four Books of the Gospel And in like manner I do receive the fifth Council whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anatheme Thus he received all the lawful General Councils which had been before him for there were but five But whereas you will not resign up your assent to the Definitions of Councils until you first can find them resolved into the infallible Rule of Scripture I must tell you first that you will still be strongly pressed to shew upon what infallible principle you take Scripture by an infallible assent to be the undoubted Word of God and then you shall see how the whole Machin of your religion topleth tumbleth to the ground for there cannot be a more groundles ground See of this chap. 3. Numb 20. then that ground upon which you by rejecting the infallible authoritie of the Church are forced to build your whole religion to wit that you by the meer reading of the Scripture can by its Light as you discover the Sun by its Light discover it so manifestly to be the undoubted Word of God that this discovery sufficeth to ground your infallible assent to this veritie And it must be a far surer discovery then that by which we discover the Sunne by his Light for this discovery can onely ground a natural certaintie the other discovery must ground a supernatural not certainly but infallibly Secondly I must tell you that these your proceedings to a private review after you have perused the Definitions of the Councils to examine them until you find them resolved into the infallible Rule of Scripture of which resolution you make your private judgements the Iudge to open awide gap to Heresie as I have shewed in the last chapter Numb 2. And for the importance of the matter I will here again further declare in an example which hereafter also will stand me in much use Let us take an Arrian Cobler to this man this your Doctrine giveth the final review of the Council of Nice and you give him leave after he hath perused the definitions of this Council defining God the Son to be of the self same individual substance with his Father to examine them until he find them resolved into the infallible rule of Scripture He doth examine them and chiefly how they agree with that text I and my Father are one on which Text you * Chap. 4. Number 57. afterwards confess the infallibilitie of this definition to be chiefly grounded and therefore St. Athanasius did press it thrice Now in the examining of the conformity of this definition with this text the Arrian Cobler by his poor understanding is easily able to see that which a wiser man would yet see sooner that he is put upon a necessitie to inquire how God the Son and his Father are one whether it be by affection onely as Arrians hold or One in the self same individual substance as the Councel defineth and inquiring this he calls to his mind that other text Jo. 17. v. 21. where Christ prayeth That all his Disciples may be one thing as thou Father in me and I in thee Here will this Cobler say because he hath often been instructed by his own Doctors Christ who said I and my Father are one thing demandeth that his Disciples may be one thing as he and his Father are one thing But he doth not demand that his Disciples may be all one thing in the self same individual substance Therefore he concludes Christ is not one thing in the selfe same individuall substance with his Father but one thing in affection onely as his Disciples might come to be one thing False therefore would he say is this definition of the Council which cannot be resolved into the infallible Word of God in which all things necessary to salvation as this point is are plainly set down as this point is not for this is the plainest place and yet conferring it with the other I find it not evidently agreeing with the Definition of the Council but rather evidently against it by which I conclude in this my Review the Definition of the Council to be false Most learned Sir either convince this Cobler by some clearer Text of Scripture which I am sure if this Text fail is impossible or else to the eternal good of misled souls confesse that if once you give private men leave to make a Review of the Definitions of Councils you can find no means upon earth to put an end unto our endless controversies the Scriptures alone not sufficing for this end as I shall shew in the next chap. without you take the Scriptures as they send us to the Church bidding us hear her under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens 5. Thirdly Learned Sir I must tell you that this your Doctrine maketh the Definition of true Councils and their final determinations to be indeed no Definitions nor final Determinations at all For you make all those great Fathers of the Church to assemble themselves from so remote parts of the world onely to talk and discourse about such and such points in controversie and to leave the controversies themselves undefined and undermined to be finally defined and determined onely
Doctors of the Primitive Church And we find sufficient of their works which have not perished never taxed by any but confessed Hereticks to be erroneous in these points in which they hold with us whereas their small errours used presently to be discovered and cried down We find also sufficient plenty of such works as never were suspected to be bastard pieces or to have been corrupted And it would make a learned man amazed to ask as you do How few of them have touched upon our differences Are you ignorant that our learned Coccius hath filled a great and a very great double â—ome onely with the words of Holy Fathers opposite to your Doctrine in those points in which we differ Gualterus did single out twelve points in which our chief differences do consist And he sheweth in his Chronicle at the end of every age from Christs time to this sufficient plenty of Holy Fathers to Demonstrate what the prime Pastors of the Church followed by the people did believe in every one of those Ages concerning these very prime points in which we differ from you The Author of the Progeny of Catholikes and Protestants handling a part all our main differences doth in all these points give you the very words of your own chief Doctors clearly acknowledging a great number of Holy Fathers directly opposite unto them in each one of those points Do but please to look at the end of this Author upon his Table of Books and Chapters and you may find that which I have said verified in what point or points you please Groundless then is the whole Discourse against arguing out of Holy Fathers And indeed your Doctors would fain dispute out of Scriptures 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 Scriptures onely the sayings which are not in Scripture are in no case receivable by them whereas indeed there is no good got by disputing of Texts of Scriptures but either to make men sick or mad as our adversaries may daily see by their fruitless Scripture combates with the Anabaptists the Sabatharians and other upstart Sectaries But the Church of God is the Kings high way by which a man is sure to travail to truth There ought therefore to be no appealing to Scriptures nor disputing out of them only since by that means either neither side will be victorious or it is a hazard whether These things you might have learned from the ancient Fathers if you had regarded their Doctrine yet since their authority hath so low a place in your esteem in order to finding out the truth to humor you I will lay aside all that might be said out of the Fathers I cut then off by your own consent all you say concerning S. Cyprian and the Crisis of S. Austin concerning S. Cyprian yet have I a great mind to tell you that S. Austin expressed exceeding well that Humility and Charity be those two vertues which made S. Cyprian and ought to make us submit to general Councils as a prime part of our bounded duty humility wheresoever it is found is the Actus imperans of a most submissive Obedience to the Orders of those whom under pain of damnation we are to obey Because the Devils had not this Humility in submitting themselves to God and the obedience due to him their Rebellion is ascribed to pride which for the same reason is styled The Mother of Heresie Now as Humility bringeth with her this necessary submission in the interior so Charity is the Vertue which will be sure to see that peace and Unity be kept exteriorly in the Church Grant this submission to all Councils and we have done Of my fourth and fifth Number 15. God on his part hath given us an excellent means to be surely guided in our interior in which faith consists by following the Church the Kings high way surely leading to Truth take away this means recommended so often for this end by Scripture and you shall see how pittifully we are left unprovided in order to exterior Unity But you presse to have my discourse to this effect drawn into a syllogism which you do for me But I hope to do it yet more clearly for my self in this manner Under pain of damnation all are bound to agree in this that every one interiorly giveth an infallible assent to all such points as are necessary to be believed for salvation But all can never be brought to agree in giving interiourly this infallible Assent to all such points without they submit their Assent to some living Judge indued with infallibility Therefore all can never be brought to agree in that in which they are bound to agree under pain of damnation without they all submit their interior assent to some living Judge indued with infallibility The first Proposition is clear because all are obliged to please God and to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God The second Proposition is proved thus An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority and no other infallible authority sufficient to breed this agreement in their interior assent to all points necessary can be assigned but the authority of the Church The Authority of the Scripture though infallible doth not give us clear Texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation as I shall shew in the next chapter And we see with our eyes those who submit to this authority of Scripture as infallible to disagree mainly in these very points for one thinketh in his conscience these Scriptures to be understood one way another thinketh in his conscience they are to be understood one other way this other is licensed by you to differ from the former for you licence such a man to differ even from the greatest authority upon Earth to wit a general Council much more easie must you be to license him to differ from an other private man and that other private man hath as good ground to differ from the other What possible means is here of Union in the interior man in which faith onely doth consist What you adde of God his sufficiently providing for his Church by Scripture onely is in this sence true that in Scripture we read that we are to hear the Church not that Scripture alone by her self endeth all our controversies as partly hath been proved but shall now more copiously be performed in my next chapter in which you shall find all that you adde in this place presently answered after I have fully set down the state of the question The third CHAPTER That seeing Scripture alone doth not decide all things necessary to salvation there must be a living Judge 1. YOu deliver your Opinion in your answer to my third Number page 12. As towards controversies we say that Christ
whether these true and uncorrupted words of Scripture be taken in this place in their common sense or taken Figuratively or spoken mystically of some other thing Now how is it possible by Scripture onely to come to have an infallible knowledge of this for it dependeth merely on the secret free will of God to use these words here either Mystically or Figuratively or in their plain vulgar sense To know and that infallibly This secret free-will of God I must have a Revelation and such a one as no doubt can be made of it Where find I this Revelation in Scripture Fourthly your learned Sanctius De Sacra Scriptura Col. 409. having said That Holy Scripture in these things which are necessary to salvation is clear he assigns no fewer then nineteen Rules necessary to the true knowledge thereof besides the having the Spirit of God and the reading the Scripture attentively and the understanding the words and places thereof And Scharpius in Cursu Theologico de Scriptoribus controvers 8. P. 44. assigneth twenty Rules for the understanding the Scripture which unless they be kept we cannot but erre But surely it is very easie to keep them No such matter For he exacts to know Original Languages to discuss the words Phrases and Hebraisms to confer the places which are like and unlike to one another c. Tell me now do all these and the former Rules shew a plain easie way to infallibility especially we having no sure knowledge that all these fallible Rules will at last produce infallibility Good God! Is this the way promised to be so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it Fifthly I must adde a saying of your so much esteemed Chillingworth who in his Praeface Numb 30. saith No more certain Signe that a point is not evident then when honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves Liberty of Judgement after mature consideration of the matter do differ about it About how many points do you and your Brothers differ which I have in this Chapter shewed to be points mainly necessary to Salvation which according to this Rule of knowing what is evident what not are evidently not set down plainly in Scripture And to speak the plain truth this ground upon which you and yours are still forced to stand so to withstand the necessity of one Infallible living Judge seemeth a plain Paradox 6. In one sense as I have often noted we still grant all things necessary to Salvation to be set down in Scripture to wit in these Texts in which the Scripture bids us Hear the Church and that under pain of being accounted by a sentence ratified in Heaven Publicans and Heathens and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her by any false Doctrine that She is Pillar and Ground of Truth That the Holy Ghost abideth with her for ever teaching her all Truth That Gods Spirit shall not depart from the Mouth of her seed nor her seeds seed And such like places which I shall in due place Chap. 4. Num. 58. to 64. shew most forcibly to prove this verity And the very reading of them sheweth them to be no less plain and cleer to this purpose then those places which you cry out to be evident for the proof of every point which is necessary to salvation And I am sure you can bring no such evident Texts for all yea for any of these points which I have already said in this chapter not to be evidently set down in Scripture though they be of prime necessity as others also which I shall by and by adde The Scripture alone by it self in which sense you speak doth not as these places will demonstrate set down all things necessary to salvation yet she setteth down and that first more clearly then she doth set down many such necessary points a Command to go to the Church for our full instruction So Saint Paul was taught all things necessary for his knowledge by those few words Act 9.6 Goe into the City and it shall be told what thou must do 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 Pastours and Doctours which God gave us as the Scripture saith That we should not be Children wavering and carried about with the wind of false doctrine with circumvention of error 7. But to go on with your Assertion all things necessary to salvation say you are plainly set down in Scripture This is your main foundation of Faith making you not onely to take Scriptures but to take Scriptures onely and nothing but Scriptures for the ground of your Faith this ground I say must needs be plainly set down in Scripture otherwise according to your own words What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary Again if this be not plainly set down in Scripture it will remain uncertain to us whether God did intended to have all such necessary things taught us by the Scripture taken by it self alone or whether God intended the Scripture for divers other ends provinding sufficiently for this end by sending us to the Church for our further instruction That then which I call for again and again is to have plainly set down to me in Scripture that God intended by the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone to teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation shew me the Texes 8. You go about to shew me them And first you press the second time that of Saint Paul to Timothy 2.15 16. Take for my first answer that which I gave you when you first alledged this place chap. 1. Numb 3. And you must pardon me if I say that place speaketh of Scriptures interpreted by the Church to whom I think it is fitter to give this Office then to let every Cobler usurp it as I have shewed you do chap. 1. Numb 2. and chap. 2. Numb 4. the Scriptures thus profaned and by such interpretations truly discanoned as I may say are rather subject to that effect which Saint Paul his Epistles according to St. Peter had with some men that is they are subject to be depraved by them to the perdition of their Interpreters where by the way you are again to take notice that St. Peter saith Interpreters depraved those places of Saint Paul to their damnation though these places were hard as Saint Peter saith and consequently these places did not according to you doctrine contain points necessary to salvation Whence you see that your proceedings in allowing much liberty of Interpretations even in hard points may easily prove damnable It was then true which I told you in another place That though the Scripture be
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
as they most prudently believed what the Prophets taught them by word of mouth to be infallibly true because spoken by those whom God gave Commission to say what they said so they most prudently believed what the same men did deliver to them by their writings as Gods Word because written by those whom God gave Commission unto to write what they writ The credit and belief given as well to their writings as to their words unwritten was at last found prudently accepted upon the Motives upon which they accepted their Commissions as given by God for their infallible instruction All were moved prudently to accept of this their Commission because God did own it for his by several Miracles or other most apparent proofs testifying to the people the infallible Commission which those Prophets and Scripture writers had to teach them by words or writing or both Their wits then were induced to accept of this their Commission as truly given by God moved thereunto by such prudent Motives that it had been a high act of imprudence which in point of salvation is damnable to have disbelieved them for example they did either see such apparent Miracles or such notorious force of Doctrine working visibly so strange changes of manners and in so many before so vitious to a life very Vertuous and sometimes vertuous in a stupidious degree The writers of the New Testament had these divine attentions yet more abundantly though the others cannot be denied sufficient whence as from their only words not yet written many thousands received their faith because they first prudently were induced by these Motives to acknowledge them to have had a true Commission from God to say to us in his Name all that they said and then because they acknowledged this Commission to be from God they believed infallibly all what they said because they said it with Commission from God to say it So by their words now written by them in the Scriptures which they delivered unto them many thousands received their Faith because first prudently they were induced by these Motives to acknowledge these writers to have had a true Commission from God to write what they did write in his Name and then because they acknowledged this Commission to have been from God they did believe infallibly all that they did write because they did write it with Commission from God Thus you see upon what assurance those who first received the Scriptures did receive them for Gods VVord The Apostles gave their writings to the prime Prelates and Pastors of the Church assuring them in Gods Name that these writings were Gods VVord These Pastors and Prelates preached to the people that they should admit of these writings as Gods true VVord VVhat they preached was believed with an infallible assent upon the authoritie of the prime Pastours of the Church They were prudently induced to give an infallible assent to their authority by these strong Motives by which they had demonstrated themselves to have Commission from God to teach his Doctrine both by word and writing Thus was the first Age assured of Gods Word by the Oral Tradition of the first Pastors of the Church assuring them also that the Spirit of truth would abide with the Church teaching her all truth and that they were to hear the Church under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens and that she should be unto them as the piller and ground of truth for as they did write so doubtless they did teach these things These first Christians then received this doctrine with an assent as infallible as they received the Scriptures And so all then believed and all taught their Successors to believe the Church to have such infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost that in all doubts arising about faith they were to submit unto her as to one having Commission from God to declare all such matters The second Age by so universal so full so manifest a tradition was most prudently induced to acknowledge the church to have such a Commission from God and so they believe the Church for this divine authority given her Now there is nothing which can make any thing more prudently credible then universal tradition A miracle to confirm that there is such a City as London though in it self it were a surer motive would not work so undoubted a beliefe in the minds of those who never did see London as universal tradition worketh And yet this tradition is but one of the motives which induceth us to acknowledge the Church to have received Commission to declare with infallible authority the Verities received from the Apostles and consequently her declarations to be admitted with infallible assent for her authority But I must needs note that this motive of tradition alone did serve to make all for the first 2000 yeares and more give an infallible assent to their Church see Ch. 4. Number 11. yet here I intreat you to mark how they resolved their faith then Why did they believe then that the Soul was immortal Because God said so by his Church having Commission to teach us all we are to believe Why believed they that this Church had Commission to teach them as Authorized with due infallibilitie Because the same Church told them so Why did they believe this Because they would do so And they would do so because it had been meere folly not to accept of this Churches Commission to teach them infallibly all truths which Commission they knew by tradition to have been ever accepted as divine by all good people so we c. I will adde one Motive more 33. Miracles are called a Testimony greater then Iohn the Baptist Christ himself said If you will not believe me believe my Works By this great testimony of Miracles God hath often owned the doctrine of the Romane Church even as it is in this our dayes For he knoweth but litle of the world who doth not know the vast extent of those Provinces and Kingdomes which in this last Age the Preachers of the Roman Faith have added to their Faith by this Testimony of God by Signes and Wonders and divers Miracles Hebrewes 2.4 And here most Visibly Our Lord ever working withall and confirming their words by Signes and Miracles It appeareth also by the History of Bede and the plain confession of your learned Magdeburgians that the faith brought into our England by St. Austin was the same faith which you abolished by your Reformation as you call it And yet again it appeareth by Bede and St. Gregory his Epistles that wonderful were the miracles which St. Austin wrought in Confirmation of the faith preached in so much that St. Gregory thought it necessary to admonish him of conteining himself in humility lest the working of so many miracles should puff him up These Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles Therefore the doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles And it may for this motive
upon what was in writing So Cressy Exomol C. 8. N. 3. Now if another in Spain another at Constantinople or other in some remote part from these had bestowed the like or greater expences and industries in procuring Varieties of Manuscripts it is most probable they might have in these places found in every one of them as great variety of lections which multitude of Lections Usher alone found to be incredible almost in every vers The Manuscripts which were before all printing being so exceeding different what assurance have those who did first print such or such a Manuscript rather then a hundred Manuscripts different from that which they printed that the Manuscript which was the true undoubted Copy of the true undoubted Originall was printed by them and published to the world which now contents it self with printed Copies onely and not one among twenty thousand hath recourse to any old written Manuscripts or if they have recourse to any such Manuscript or Manuscripts yet they are so wonderfull farre from having any full assurance that such Manuscripts be the true undoubted Copies of the true undoubted Original that they approach not one inch nearer the Assurance of the Truth by having Recourse to such Manuscripts And here it is that I may farre fitter use these your owne words used in another place against me Alas Sir At what a losse are you and yours in this grand and capital and comprehensive controversie which affords me liberty to think that which is intricated with so many unspeakable difficulties and most manifest uncertainties is not that manifest ground of certainty and infallible certainty by which fools cannot erre for what else can a Collier have infallibly to guide him through all these Labyrinths whose windings are made more unextricable by lying so far from the least glimpse of any Light For as you say Translations are only so farre Gods Word as they agree with the Originals that is with such Originals as are the true and undoubted Copies of the true and undoubted Original But say I it is impossible for any man living who accounteth the judgment of the Church to be fallible to know infallibly which Translation agree with the true undoubted Originals and which not because it is impossible for him to know which be the true undoubted Originals and which not Therefore it is impossible for any man living who accounteth the judgement of the Church to be fallible to know which Translations be the word of God and which not You then have neither infallible assurance of translation nor of Original and consequently you have no assurance of any part of Scripture to be God assured Word And yet all the assurance of your faith is built upon this of which you have no assurance at all For you have no assurance of either Translation or Original or Interpretation of any one book or how many or which books make up the whole Canon 36. As for our assurance of the Word of God it dependeth not upon these inextricable uncertainties If those who received the first true Original Coppy did upon good ground receive it relying upon the authority of those who did give it unto them as an authority infallible we upon no lesse good ground receive as authentical and secure from error both in faith and manners our Vulgar Translation which we receive upon the infallible authority of the Church An infalliblity as well grounded as theirs who received first the true Original Scriptures as I proved Numbers 32.33 But of this infallibility I am to treat at large Chapter 4. If Isidor Clarins in any one title importing faith or manners differs from what we receive upon this infallible authority we have nothing to do with him what you object against us for the different editions of Sixtus and Clement hath bin answered by many and very fully by that famous book called Charitie Maintained written against Potter see it Part. 2. Cap. 6. Numb 3. Where by authentical Testimonies of persons beyond all exceptions is shewed that the decree of Sixtus about his edition was never promulgated and that he himselfe had declared diverse things to have crept in which needed a second review and that the whole work should be re-examined though he could never do it being prevented by death The very self same is told you distinctly in the Preface to our Vulgar Edition but I cited the former book because of his severall proofs and because Chillingworth who with so much applause of many answered this book doth not return one word to disprove his Adversaries most satisfactory answer All your other arguments end in the biting of a flea 37. Next you object two places of S. Austin But Sir you have given me leave to have no more to do with the Fathers Authority Councils you also labour to discredit in the highest degree for you make them like false witnesses in matters concerning the salvation of infinite people to betray their own falsity in affirming things directly contradictory You must not say but prove by S. Austin and other good Authors that two lawful Councils lawfully approved have taught contrary opinions in matter of Faith otherwise you only deceive the people which knoweth not which Councils were lawful which not Would you make us believe S. Austin thought the Council of Ariminum a lawful Council Do you your self hold it so Did not he know it was not so as wel as you After all then you cannot shew which is your prime Principle That take away the infallibility of the Church you can find infallible means by Scripture only to decide all Controversies for by Scripture only it is a plain impossibility to decide which Scriptures be the true word of God which not As also which be corrupted which be not and which be the true original Copies of the true Books which be not This is a true convincing argument 38. Another argument is that there be many Controversies and may be yet many more the decision of which is necessary to Salvation and yet they cannot be decided by Scripture only and consequently some other infallible Judge to wit the Church is necessary for the infallible decision of these points Your second answer still is that the decisions of all such Controversies are plainly set down in Scripture which I have at large shewed in the beginning of this Chapter to be false and now I go to shew it further by specifying divers of these Controversies in particular Of my 8th Number 39. The first of these Controversies is about the necessity of not working upon the Sunday You dare not say that he shall be saved who doth weekly work and resolveth to work upon the Sunday without any necessity You must then affirm that to abstain from working upon that day is a point necessary to Salvation Now I ask where this necessary point is plainly set down in Scripture And I presse you to give me as clear Texts to prove this as I cited at large to
the world Good Sir in what year of our Lord was it that I did say that this was certainly trueâ— Did not I say so this very last year which was above twelve hundred years since Saint Jeroms time If there were one Hebrew copy then what is that to our purpose now Can we go and confer our Translations of Saint Matthew and see how far they agree with that Original copy which St. Jerom in his dayes did see in one only place of the world Shew me so much as one Hebrew copy now extant in the whole world of sufficient credit to ground an infallible assent If after more then a thousand years loss of all Original copies Munster or any other private man obtrude us an Hebrew Original which hath lain all this while God knowes where by what Evidence will that appear Gods infallible and uncorrupted Word All your shifts will not here help you 48. You would shift first by asking how the Latine Interpretation came to be Authentique I Answer Because it was accepted for authentique and thus declared to be so by the Church which Church when she admitted it was fully satisfied that it agreed with the Original And this she knew by Tradition from the Church of former Ages This Tradition doth not certifie you because you hold it fallible And therefore most certainly I certifie you that you will never believe Saint Matthewes Gospel with an infallible assent until you believe the Church infallible in her traditions Your second shift is this Gospel might possibly at the first be written in Greek Good Sir tell me whether onely possibilities grounded upon conjectures be sufficient to ground an infallible assent And here give me leave by the way to shew you once more the evident unevidence which is in that light by which you see Saint Lukes Gospel for example to be Gods true word and so of all other Scriptures The Greek Copy of Saint Luke you see as evidently as the Sun to be Gods true Word by reading of it and yet this great Evidence is so little different from that Evident inevidence which you call a Possibilitie that Saint Matthews Greek Copy is Gods true and uncorrupted Word that you cannot see with your irradiated understanding whether this inevidence be not to the full as good as that Evidence and that it may not as well ground an infallible assent as that Again how come you to hold it a meer Possibility that Saint Matthews Gospel was written in Greek for if the Greek Text of Saint Matthew be as truly Original as that of Saint Luke your irradiated understanding must needs by its Light see it to be Gods Word as well as you see the Sun by its Light why then do you venture no further then to esteem it a possibilitie Is it a mere possibilitie that St. Lukes Gospel is Gods uncorrupted word Now let us see how slender your Conjecture is though I confess it to be better in my judgement then the light manifesting to you infallibly the truth of Saint Lukes Gospel Let us see I say how slender your Conjecture is to prove that possibly Saint Matthews Gospel might be written first in Greek because the Greek Copy interpreteth the Hebrew word Emmanuel which if it were written in Hebrew needed not any interpretation A pittiful weak Conjecture And this Dart is no sooner raised above your head with weak hand but it falls with a strong hand upon your head again The Greek Copy translateth Hebrew words therefore say you it is no Translation but it is an Original Sir it is manifest that Translations of Scripture usually tell us the Hebrew words first and then the Translation of it So Genesis 31.48 Galaad id est tumulus testis Galaad that is the witnesse heap And Gen. 35.18 Benoni id est filius doloris mei Benjamin id filius dextrae And Exod. 12. Phase id est transitus And Exodus 26. Manhu quod significat quid est hoe By these and divers such places you see how familiarly Translatours tell you the Hebrew word and then the Interpretation of it No prophane mean authoritie would upon so slight a conjecture as this is be rejected and contradicted Much lesse if he made himself an eye-witnesse of what he said Yet you reject Saint Jerom though he saith he did see a copy of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes and you reject him though all the Fathers writings extant stand on his side and this upon a most slender conjecture of your own which would have made another man more wisely conjecture the quite contrary and say this copy Translateth Ergo it is a Translation Whence it evidently appears how little you care either for the single or for the unanimous consent of Eminent Fathers But this being a point onely to bee tried by the Testimony of Antiquitie your Cause is lost without some good Authours can be found for you Your third shift is in place of giving a Solution to make an Objection asking Why our Latine Translation was made Authentique if the Church had made the Greeke Authentique I Answer that I know of no body who told you That the Greeke Translation was made Authentique by the Church Neither Greeke nor Latine can be Authentique but by the Church because the Hebrew Original being lost we cannot know how farre either Greek or Latine Translation agreeth with the Original but by the infallible Tradition of the Church you who reject this cannot know possibly how far translations be Gods uncorrupted word for as you say they are only so far Gods uncorrupted Word as they agree with the Original But you know not how far they agree with the Original Ergo you know not how far they be Gods word Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the Harmony with the other Gospels Sir If any man intended to make a supposititious Gospel do you not think he would take care not to contradict the others But what harmony can there be found in these many things related by Saint Matthew and not related at all by any others Yea one of the greatest difficulties against Saint Matthews Gospel is to shew that it exactly agreeth with other Scriptures from the beginning to the ending And to be the briefer I will onely instance in some places of the beginning and ending omitting all the rest In the very first Chapter Saint Matthew tells us that Ioram did beget Ozias And yet out of the fourth Book of Kings which your Bible is pleased to call the Second Book it is manifest that Ioram begat Ochozias C. 8. And that Ochozias did beget Ioas C. 11. And that Ioas begat Amasias C. 12. and this Amasias begat Azarias C. 14. who is called here in Saint Matthew Ozias I ask then how cometh Saint Matthew to say Ioas begat Ozias who was born three Generations after him And being that these three Generations hapned between the time of David and the Captivity of Babylon they beeing added to
the other 14 Generations doe make them to be seaventeen How then is it true which Saint Matthew saith verse 17. that all Generations from David until the carrying away into Babilon are fourteen For all these Generations were Seventeen Again he saith there were fourteen Generations from Abraham to David and besides the fourteen now mentioned that there were fourteen more Generations from the carrying away into Babylon until Christ Count now thrice fourteen Generations and they in all will make fourty two But I pray now take your fingers and count all the Generations specified in Saint Matthew and you shall find them to be only fourty one A wonderful exceeding great difficulty And this for the beginning Now towards the end of Saint Matthew see the Twenty seven Chapter v. 9. Then was fulfilled that which was said by the Prophet Jeremy Read all the Prophet Jeremy and he hath no such matter in him What Harmony appeareth here Indeed in the Prophet Zachary C. 11. there is in substance what Saint Matthew said in his former Chapter about the denial of Christ by Saint Peter how much do Interpreters sweat to reconcile what Saint Matthew saith with that which other Evangilists say which seem to differ in very many circumstances No less yea far greater difficulty is it to make all that Saint Matthew saith in his last Chapter concerning some Circumstances of the Resurrection of Christ as the attentive Reader may easily see Now I pray tell me if it be not a plain Paradox to say that the agreeing of Saint Matthew with other Scriptures is so apparent that even from hence a man may know his Gospel to be infallibly Gods word whereas the apparent disagreeing bringeth most vast difficulties as I have shewed Your fifth and last shift is That all the people do fixe their faith upon that which is interpreted and not upon the Interpretation If you do so then for any thing you know you may fixe your faith upon a Lye for how know you whether the thing delivered you by the Interpreter be Gods Word or the Interpreters own word Especially when we know not who this Interpreter was how skilful how faithful how true a Copy he used How know you that this translator doth not convey his own phansies in place of Gods Word Do you know it because your fancy also tells you that this is Gods Word then thus we may have a double phantasticall assurance and nothing else This you are forced to hold sufficient yet how doth this agree with your owne words Translations are only so far Gods Words as they agree with the Originals you cannot resolve your faith into the Original never proposed unto you into the Translation you say you do not resolve it yet you resolve it into the written word What written word is that which is neither Translation nor Original This I ask and this you are bound to tell me being your very main Position is that all you believe is resolv'd in to the written words If the Illumination of the Spirit can tell you Gods word without any certain assured conveighing means you must needs be a prophet you must needs have far more then you will allow to the Church You must needs know which of those so many Greek Copies is the only true one And by the like illumination of the Spirit any clown neither understanding Latine Greek or Hebrew will be able infallibly to know which English Translation is Gods true Word And if you say he cannot because he cannot confer it with the Original he will truly tell you that he can confer it with the Original as much as you can confer any Translation of S. Matthew with the Original which not being Extant in the whole World can no more be looked upon by you who know Hebrew then by him To other Translations you give but humane credit such as he giveth to the English Translation Now after you have given to every one of your own any Illumination of Spirit sufficient to know infallibly Gods Word without having any better conveyance then a humane Translation you very judiciously deny any such Illumination to the Church because she erred in Translating Ipsa for ipsum It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be Translated Ipsum how know you the Church followed the false Hebrew Copy How many most grave and most ancient Fathers have also read Ipsa And it was a loud lye of Kemnitius to say the contrary See the Dâ—way Annotations Gen. 3. V. 15. And Bellarm. l. 2. de verbo Dei Cap. 12. And if you ask why the Greek was not made infallible by the Church as well as the Latine I answer we have her declaration that the Latin Vulgar is Authentique and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners when the Church shall declare as much of the Greek that may then be believed Authentique if both be Authentique upon the Churches Declaration yet you who believe her Declarations to be fallible will still have a onely fallible ground for that assent which you give to Saint Matthews Gospel So that all your shifts fail you in this important point of Faith towards a whole Gospel All that you prove concerning other points debated between us out of Holy Fathers since they find so little credit with you after their Authoritie is demonstrated to stand for such or such a point are not to be insisted upon until you esteem them more 49. I come then to what you say to my 13. Number Of my 13th Number where I Object Luthers not seeing the Apocalyps and the Epistle of Saint James to be Canonical by their own light Your first answer is That a Negative Argument from one is not cogent for it followeth not he did not see therefore he could not see it Sir in our case a Negative Argument is a strong proof and as strong an one as this I doe not see endeavouring to see and having good eyes wide open a light as visible by its light as the Sun by his light Ergo there is no such light standing before me You will grant Luthers Eyes as good as your own his Understanding as Irradiated as your own the Apocalyps stood before his eyes as clearly as yours what should hinder him from seeing it and make you see it The light is the same the Proposition of it the same your eyes or understanding no better nor more assisted Secondly you answer that hence we see you do not follow him in all things blindly Sir the Question is here who is blind and truly blind For you say that a light no lesse visible by it self then the Sunâ— is stands before both your eyes in the reading of the Apocal. and yet the one believeth as truly as he believeth any thing that he seeth this light the other will venture his salvation that he seeth it not for in the same book of Apocalyps last Chap. verse 1. it is said If any man shall take
pretend that to be necessary which you will say the next moment is unnecessary 58. But to shew you further that the Scripture is not clear in all points necessary to Salvation with such claritie as is necessary to put an end effectually to all controversies I take a point or two set down with full as great clarity as divers other points can be shew'd to be set down which other points you do affirme both to be necessary to Salvation and also to be set down clear enough to decide the Controversie for you though they be set down with no greater claritie then those points which I will specifie and which you will say be not set down clear enough to decide the Controversie for us whence the inconsequence of your proceedings will be made evident whilest all shall see that you will pretend such a degree of clarity in the Texts which you use to alledge for such points to be sufficient to decide them for you and by and by they shall see again a higher degree of clarity rejected by you as unsufficient to decide a point against you To prove this the first point I specifie is of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction The text in your own Bible speaketh thus James 5.14 Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders Priests of the Church And let them pray over him anointing him with oyle in the name of our Lord. And the prayer of the faithfull shall save the sick And the Lord shall rais him up And if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him What imports a dying man more then to have that applied to him in due manner by which he may be secured upon the word of a God that if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him And yet you cry superstition superstition If a Priest be called for to pray over a sick man and to anoint him with oile which is that Visible Act to which invisible grace justifiing from sinne is promised in those words And if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him How clear this place is appeares by the very letter in which we have all we desire to make a Sacrament A Visible signe of invisible grace You will say this clarity is not in a degree sufficient to make a man believe with divine faith that this Unction of anointing is a Sacrament or a Visible signe of invisible Grace And so soon as I shall ask you will tell me that your grand fundamental and Capital point All things necessarie to Salvation are clearly set down in Scripture is a point delivered in Scripture by Texts having a sufficient degree of clarity to make it an Article to be believed with a divine faith I call for those Texts and you do give them as well as you can as I suppose I examine them all in this Chapter from my eighth Number to my fifteenth and I dare Venture my life that no wise conscionable man will say that any one of those texts or all put together doe with as great a degree of claritie affirm All things necessarie to Salvation to be plainly set down in Scripture alone as this text I alledged affirmeth this Sacrament of Anointing But this you say is not affirmed with a degree of Clarity sufficient to decide the Controversie for us and to ground an infallible belief of this point Therefore that degree of Clarity is not sufficient to decide in your behalf that capital Controversie and to ground an infallible beliefe of it And yet for many other points which I specified in the beginning of this Chapter you have not so much Scripture as you have for this prime point though I did chuse this for my instance because I had examined all your texts You give two answers to this Objection The first is that if the Scripture hath decided this point for us then the Scripture can judge and end Controversies But Sir doth it hence follow that it can end all necessary Controversies because it can end this one Controversie Again is this Controversie by this Text ended Doe not you still stand out in the contrarie opinion This Text indeed might as I said seem in the impartial judgement of a prudent man to say evidently that this anointing is a Sacrament and sure I am that it saith it clearer then any Scripture you can bring for many points which you say are clearly decided by Scripture yet we see by the experience which we have of you and yours that even this great degree of claritie in this Text will not serve to convince your judgments whence it is manifestly inferred that a lesse degree of claritie which notwithstanding is the highest which can be found in many Texts that be the clearest alledgeable for many points necessary to salvation will not effectually end the controversies about those points And therefore there must be some other means to end them Your Second Answer is flatly against the Text for you say these words do only relate to the guift of healing in those daies and the Scripture saith they have also a relation to the healing of the Soul If he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him I pray what Scripture have you to prove that the Elders in those daies did commonly cure all sick anointing them with oile I am sure you can alledge nothing but some uncertain conjecture I asked you also if you had one place of Scripture half as clear against this Sacrament of anointing as the Text I brought was clear for it But you neither did nor could give me any 59. The second point which I did chuse to prove that such Texts of Scripture as are clearer then those Texts which you can alledge for many necessarie points for example clearer then any Text for the Sunday or baptizing children is notwithstanding this greater degree of claritie rejected by you as not sufficient to decide the controversie against you Therefore I say you most inconsequently proceed when you affirm far lesse clearer Texts sufficient to decide all Controversies The Text brought by me and rejected thus by you was This is my Body Words expressed by four several Writers of the Scripture without any intimation of their being spoken Figuratively And if you confer this place with the sixth of Saint Iohn he hath these words The bread that I will give is my flesh and then as it were purposely to shew he spoke not Figuratively he added My Flesh is meat indeed and my Blood is drink indeed Notwithstanding these so clear Texts you hold that the Scripture decideth this point against us with a decision sufficient to end the controversie And yet for the contrarie all the Texts you can bring have not that degree of claritie which these Texts have against you But you deny that these Texts decide against you Therefore to speak with tolerable consequence you should acknowledge that lesse clear Texts cannot decide against us yet being by your owne main principle bound
into the possession thereof even unto the Kingdome of God Whereas your own Musculus in Locis Tit. de Baptismo saith The Fathers denied salvation to the Children who died without Baptisme though their Parents were faithful And by reason of this necessitie of Baptisme to the salvation of Infants held so generally Calvin himself saith It was usual many Ages since even almost from the beginning of the Church that in danger of death Lay-people might baptize Institut Lib. 4. Cap. 15. Numb 20. And to say the contrarie were to crosse all Antiquitie as your Bilson confesseth in his Conference at Hampton Court Hooker saith no lesse in his 5. book of Ecclesiast Policy 62. A number of other learned Protestants are against your Opinion But I say lesse of this point for your own Opinion giveth me advantage enough to prove what I intend that is a point to be necessarie and yet not plainly set down in Scripture if you grant that there is a Precept necessary to be fulfilled by Parents that they procure their Children to be baptized But why God should command this the Children being as well saved without it according to you as with it still remains to be proved I stand upon your grant of this Precept as necessarily to be fulfilled by the Parents This Precept is necessary to be fulfilled This Precept is not plainly set down in Scripture Therefore all necessarie points are not plainly set down in Scripture Your answer will not here help you out you say Whatsoever is necessarily inferred from Scripture is binding in the Vertue of the Principle But you cannot shew that this precept given to the Parents is necessarily inferred out of Scripture Not out of the Institution of our Saviour for he also instituted the Eucharist not necessarie for Infants not out of the substitution to Circumcision for so it should not be necessarie to women no nor to any but those of the Iewish Nation to whom onely Circumcision was given as necessarie Is this a necessarie Consequence Circumcision was necessarie for the male children Ergo Baptisme is necessarie for male and female You see it is not halfe true Neither is that a necessarie Consequence which is drawne from the baptising of whole families for first as we read whole families were baptized so we read that whole families believed So Iohn 4. verse 53. Himselfe believed and his whole family Will you hence evidently infer that the little Children under yeares of discretion also believed as you infer that they are to be baptized by a necessarie precept Again this illation is far from being evident for it is not evident that there be litle ones in every family alive and those also under the age of discretion In many families all the little ones that be alive are above seaven yeares old There be many families of people newly married who have not yet any Children There be many families of people who never had Children as those who are barren Others have lost all they had by death It is then no evident consequence He baptized the whole family therefore he baptized litle Infants I insist not upon the Authorities I alledged out of Saint Austin St Chrysost because I deale with one who little regards authoritie confessed to be the Fathers 62. Now Sir to conclude this long Chapter I will shew that I conclude this point and so I doe all the former just as you say I must conclude For you say to me you must prove that those points were and ought to be determined by the Church upon necessitie of Salvation This I prove by this argument This point and all the former are necessarie to be believed with an infallible assent But we cannot believe any point with an infallible assent unlesse it be determined by an infallible authoritie therefore we must find out an infallible authoritie which hath determined these points The authoritie of the Scripture as I have proved hath not determined these points We must therefore find out some other infallible authoritie upon whose determination we may be able to do that which to be saved we must do to wit upon which we may be able to believe these points with an infallible assent No such infallible Authoritie can be found on Earth if we deny the Authoritie of the Church to be infallible I conclude then that her Authoritie must needs be infallible The Fourth CHAPTER The Church is this Judge Her Authoritie Infallible NO better beginning can I give to this Chapter Of my 17th Number then the very last Number of the last Chapter which I must intreat my reader to note most carefully so to observe the forcible deduction by which I prove the necessitie of a judge different from Scripture who must be infallible for the reason there assigned and who can be no other then the Church This proofe alone might serve the turn yet I adde 2. First those words Matthew 12.19 spoken to Saint Peter vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it these words allow the Church a securitie from ever admitting any doctrin so pernitious that the gates of Hell may prevail against her And this promise made to the Church is that which mainly makes to my purpose Whether the church be built upon Saint Peter and his Successors or upon the faith of Saint Peter is not the thing I cheifly here aim at My aim is to find a Church built on a Rock so strong that no error shall ever overthrow it And so I have nothing to do with your long disputation about Saint Peter I am now secured the Church shall never be a Nest of Errors Idolatrous superstitious wickedly assuming the authoritie of an infallible tribunall without sufficient warrant All or any of these things would bring her to the gates of Hell they being all damnable impieties That what is said of this infallibility of the Church only concerns the Roman Church I will shew in the next Chapter Have patience until then or read that first You being to say nothing against me untill you begin to say sixthly That you have enough against me for saying the Church is secured from all damnable errors by this promise For this maketh you think my meaning to be that Christ doth not intend here to exempt the Church from all error but only damnable But Sir my meaning in specifying her exemption from damnable errour was only that time to take for granted that which most of yours use to grant and even thence to presse your further you grant the Church free from damnable errour whence I have at least thus much that no body shall be damned for following the guidance of the Church And I have also that the whole Church being thus by divine assistance secured from erring damnably is secured from ever being destroyed by any damnable error she is therefore alwayes to have such a visible existence as is necessarie to afford a guidance secured
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 So though the Apostles were all infallible in their Doctrine yet they would not determine that grave question Acts 15. without calling a Council To consider of this word in which there was made a great disputation for this is necessarie for the fuller conviction of Hereticks fuller satisfaction of the weaker sort and further comfort of the whole Church to see truth to triumph upheld by the shoulders of all Christendom what proceeding could be more sweet or more orderly what exposition more agreable to this Text Tell the Church which denuntiation is to proceed by degrees from lower to higher Judges as is there expressed And Consequently when the sentence of the Highest tribunal of all is rejected then or never a man is deservedly to be accounted a Publican or a Heathen for not hearing the Church universall She therefore under so great a penalty being alwayes to be heard is secured from all kind of errour what soever in matters of faith belonging to her tribunall and so we must grant her to be infallible I have then already found out such a judge as I sought for a judge in matters of faith a living judge and infallible as you would have him wih an infallibility excluding all errour in what soever he proposeth or decreeth or all possibility of errour For if it were possible for this judge to impose an errour Christ could not possibly have declared it to be so heinous 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 she therefore cannot lead us into an error For as you truly say To be bound to assent to an errour is impossible Our infallibility of knowledge concerning this point is as great as it is of those points which are delivered by Scripture And therefore you may stand up to my Creed and that far more securely then stand out against such a Church the not hearing of which is so great a crime This Church is infallible and by manifest consequence only the Roman Church as I shall demonstrate the next Chapter Number 2. 7. Here by the way you tell me That If I would go the right way in this Dispute I should use another method for whereas I would argue the Church to be this Judge which we cannot safely disobey I should rather shew a priori That the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define and therefore ought to be obeyed in all things whatsoever But Sir when I come to use this very method I do foresee that it will so gald you that you will cry out to have this burthensome heavy argument cast upon the other shoulder from which you now would have it shifted to avoid the present trouble it causeth you you shall see if it fall not out as I said And that in this Chapter Numb 52. Of my 18th Number 8. As for St. Austins Authority I must here lay it aside as well as every where else for fear I should lose my labour even after I have proved what I should 9. You fly upon me for flying to that Text of Malachy 2.7 The Priests Lips shall keep Knowledge and they shall require the Law from his Mouth because he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts Concerning the translation of which Text I truly charge your Bible of corruption for reading thus The Priests Lips should keep the Law and they should seek the Law at his Mouth Whereas all Originals speak clearly in the future tense as the Hebrew doth and also the Greek and Latin which two Languages want not a subjunctive Mood you ask Is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome I told you it was not And I did say expresly that I added this Text to take away from you all wondering at us for allowing that to be practised towards the Priests of the new Law whose authority doubtlesse excells those of the old Law which was practised towards the Priests of the old Law in which those who searched for the true knowledge of the Law were not directed to seek that knowledge by their own reading the Scriptures but they were to search it by having recourse to the Priests who never universally should fail at any time mark that I speak by universal consent to deliver false doctrine As for private Priests they be like Private translations of the word of God If what they deliver agree with the doctrine of the Church their doctrine is infallible not for their private delivery of it but for the authority of their Church as Translators are not to be believed for their authority but for their agreeing with the word of God But there is a vast difference in this that the agreeing of the Translation with the Original is wonderful hard to know especially when the Original it selfe cannot be known by those who admit of an infallible Church by any infallible knowledge The argument of the Priests with the Publick Doctrine of the Church is easily known because her doctrine is so carefully published amongst all understanding men And as it is easy to know that Homo doth truly signifie a man for though one ignorant or malitious Fellow should say it signified a beast yet the consent of all others would manifest that mans perversity If a question were proposed in a matter of doubt in which their opinions varied then men are to proceed as I just now declared Num. 9. And then when the cause should be decided by the High Priests he who would not not hear him was deservedly put to death Deutronomy 17. I know you told me in another place that the Jewish Church erred I did deny it why Did not they erre in condemning our Saviour Yes but then the Jewish Church erred not The true high Priest without whom there is no true Representative Church erred not Caiphas was not the true High Priest for another was lawfully declared to be so This other true High Priest was Christ who before his condemnation had sufficiently for a legall declaration proclaimed himself to be the true Messias the true Anointed of our Lord. This true high Priest erred not The true head of the Church not erring the Church cannot be said to erre The true head of the Church defined not with the Council of Ariminumt Saint Athanasius was bound to follow the Church defining which defined not in that Council for the Head of the Church not defining with the body the whole body or Church defined not Therefore I say again you erre when you say He should have been bound in Conscience by the censure of the Church to have been an Arrian The Church is the High Priest defining with a lawful general Council The High
private Priests are far more likely to teach them Gods law by teaching them what the Universal Church holds to be Gods Law then by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be Gods Law as you would have them do 11 Now to prove further the Church to be a competent judge guiding us no lesse securely then those many millions were guided who had an infallible faith and the same Spirit of faith with us as S. Paul said though their faith were grounded on the authority of no Scripture but wholy and intirely on the tradition of their infallible Church I urged that in those two thousand years and more before Moses did write the very first book of Scripture the true faith of all the true believers of those Ages depended in its infallibility upon their Churches being infallible in proposing the traditions she had received shall we allow infallibility to that Church and deny it to Christs Church shall we be worse provided for in so main a point in the law of grace then they were in the law of Nature what text of Scripture is there for this Then it was not written Hear the Church then it was not written that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her Nor that she was the Pillar and ground of truth that the spirit of truth abided with her then teaching her then all truth All this and far more then this as I shall shew in this chapter is written now of Christs Church And yet you will say we are not sufficiently certified of her infalliblity I pray tell me how then were they certified and infallibly certified of the infallibility of their Church How did Men then infallibly know that they were bound under pain of damnation to believe the tradition of that Church shew me then what you demanded of me lastly to shew that is shew the ground they had then to hold their Church infallible and the infallibility of the knowledge of it and infallibly what was the subject of this infallibility If you cannot shew that they could not then do it better then we now then refuse not to stand up to our Creed Your answer to so convincing an argument is most unsatisfactory and it would make a man think your intent were to plead against your self You say this was answered before it was written what was that answer It was that the word in substance of it was before the Church which was begotten by it to this you add that when there is now as much need and as great certainty of tradition as formerly then I may urge this argument so when you speak of the word of God which you say was before all writing and which begot the Church you must speak of the unwritten word This unwritten word is that very thing which we call tradition and indeed when you speak of such a word as must be sufficient for an exterior and an infallible direction for so many millions as were by it onely to be directed in the way of Salvation before any Scripture was written you must of necessity put this word outwardly expressed somewhere and expressed in such a manner as may be able to produce this effect of guiding whole millions in the way of Salvation by an infallible beliefe of what God hath said by that word Now I pray find me out any word of God any where existent before Scripture but in the Orall Tradition of the Church of those times You say Gods word revealed is the ground of all faith They then had faith therefore they then had Gods word revealed and revealed in a sufficient manner to ground divine faith But they only had Gods word revealed by Tradition Therefore Gods word revealed by tradition is a sufficient ground to ground divine faith By this unwritten word that is by this Tradition of the Church she from a small Church consisting of those very few to whom God by his own mouth did first of all speak or by his Angels grew to be a multitude of true believers And so the Church was begotten by Tradition upon which only this multitude that is the Church did judge most prudently that to be the true word of God which was by so powerfull a motive perswaded to be so That hence you may see that this very motive alone is a very sufficient inducement to receive the Verities recommended by it and to receive them with an infallible assent For this was the only inducement which we know the true believers to have had for those 2000. years and more which were before Moses did write the first book of Scripture And those Scriptures which were written from the law of Moses to the time of Christ were only kept among the Iewes and this time lasted two thousand yeares more during which long time many among the Gentiles as apeareth by Job and his friends had true divine faith with out any knowledg of the Scripture wholy unknown unto them this faith of theirs could have no other ground but Gods unwritten Word delivered to them by Tradition Therefore Gods unwritten Word delivered by Tradition only is a sufficient ground for infallible faith 12 And whereas you add That when there is as much need and as great certainty of Traditions as formerly then I may urge this argument I answer that the need or necessity of Traditions which you conceive to have been greater then now doth not make the Traditions more credible Those who have read very much in very many credible books of France have no need at all of any unwritten and orall tradition to make them believe there is such a countrey as France yet these men whom we will suppose to live at Dover doe as certainly know by unwritten or Orall Tradition of men daily coming from France bringing French passengers French commodities and as to those who never read one word concerning France not being able to read at all And those who are not able to read at all are not lesse assured by unwritten tradition that there is such a Kingdome as France because there be many books written of France and the French warrs with the English So though we have now the Scriptures written concerning most points of faith we are not lesse helped by tradition because there be such books extant And good Sir consider how great our necessities are of both these helps for even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions we have ever had with them a perpetuall succession of horrible divisions opening still wider and wider All commonly caused by the misinterpretation of the Scripture to which inconvenience they were not subject before all Scripture was written And therefore in this respect there is now after the writing of the Scripture a greater necessity then ever of Tradition both to assure us which books be the word of God which not which be the true which the false Copies of these books Where they be secure where corrupted And lastly which is the true sense of
Christian or any word of the new Scripture was writen The meaning of St. Paul is that an Heretick might if he would clearly see his private doctrine to be opposite to the known publick Doctrine of the Church which Church then shined with the glory of infinite Miracles stupendious conversions and most eminent Sanctity and was then formed most completely with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith Yea you will say she was then more completely furnished to that end then ever she was since that time 49. Now because your cheif exception against the Churches being our judge is that you hold her not infallible besides all the proofs I have already brought of her infallibility I shall now add divers more But in the first place I must a little more fully tell you what we understand by the name of the Church He who is a seeker of his Religion must first believe the Universal Church diffused to be furnished by God with true infallible meanes to direct us securely in all doubts of faith wherefore he most prudently judgeth himselfe bound to joyne himselfe to her in faith being convinced that she directed most securely in faith Being thus also a seeker resolved to ioyne to these true believers When he proceedeth further to take a particular account in whom this infallible meanes given to the Church Universal of directing all securely in matters of faith doth consist he will readily find that it doth not consist in all the members of the Universal Church for Children and women be of the Church and yet their Vote in no mans opinion is required to the deciding any controversie in faith the Laiety also hath no decisive Voice in those points nor every inferiour Clergy man but only such as are Prelates Overseers and Governors over the rest So that in fine this infallible direction is Unanimously affirmed by us all to be undoubtedly settled upon the authority of the prime Pastors Prelats of the Church assembled together in a lawfull generall Councell with their cheife Pastor and Head the Bishop of Rome Against a thing so easily to be understood you cry out aloud of strange intricatenesse and inextricable proceedings And yet I think most clowns of this Land did easily understand what was meant by a decree of the Kingdome to the which the consent of King and Kingdome assembled in Parliament as the custome was for many years together was required Now what more difficulty is there to know what we meane by a decree or Definition of the Church The kingdome representative was the king and the Parliament The Church representative is the cheife Bishop with the full Assembly of the other Bishops in a lawful Council the Decrees and definitions of which assembly be the decrees and definition of the Church In a thing so cleare you labour your uttermost to raise a thick mist 50. First you obiect who can be certain by a divine faith of the lawfulnes and Regularity of a Pope in his first creation I answer that when I speake of a Pope defining in a lawfull Councel as I do now speak I speak of such a Pope to whom the Church submitted in calling the Councel and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful head to preside in the Councel These very acts supply all defects in his election and do make it evidently credible that he is the true head who thus admitted defined with the Councel as their acknowledged head Secondly you ask when there was Pope against Pope who of the people could distinguish the right Pope I answer that he shall ever be esteemed the right Pope to whom the Prelates of the Church shall unanimously obey when he calleth them to meet in a general Councel and in this Councel to preside over them To to have two such Popes as these are at one time is impossible And this is the only time in which a Pope defineth with a lawful Councel What you say of Popes not defining in such a Councel is not our Case put me a Pope defining with a lawful Councel and then prove him fallible if you can Whether the Popes definitions out of a Councel be fallible or infallible maketh nothing to this purpose Only this is evident if they be infallible out of a Councel they be infallible in a Councel Thirdly you think that no Controversies can in our opinion be decided when there is a doubt who is true Pope And you ask who is then to call a Councel And when the Councel is called you think us to think that this Councel can define nothing without a Pope I doubt not Sir but you have found a clear answer to all this in Bellarm lib. 2. de Concilis Chap. 19. that although a Councel without a Pope cannot define any article of faith yet in time of schisme it can judge which is true Pope and provide the Church of a true Pastor if she had none who thus provided by the Councels authority may dissolve the Councel if he pleaseth or if he please to have them remaine assembled they remaine so now by his authority and can define as well as other Councels called by the Pope In that meeting in which the Pope was to be chosen or declared the undoubted Pope the Prelats of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves Fourthly you ask how we can by divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulnes and generality of Councels for Councels have been called by Emperours not by Popes Sir your Church which never had nor shall have generall Councel is to seeke in all things belonging to them Our Church almost in every age since Constantine hath been visibly assembled in general Councels and by perpetual practice hath been sufficiently informed to deliver by the assistance of the Holy Ghost all that she hath received from her ancestors to be essential to a true Councel and to deliver this point infallibly To your obiection in order I answer first That it is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institution 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 Councels We seek for this divine Institution This we will not admit until it can be shewed in Scripture or Tradition the fact of calling sheweth not divine Institution Secondly as for the Prelates of the Church we can shew divine Institution Act. 20.28 Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock to feed or govern the Church of God And 4. Epho Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ that henceforth we may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine c. Thirdly The Emperour is not by divine Institution Lord of the Christian world No nor of any considerable part
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
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
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
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
we see with our eyes not onely fools but also most learned men to erre grossely and to follow most contradictorie opinions whilst they professe from their hearts to follow Scripture as near as they can Ans This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First because men do erre therefore is not that the way The errour is by them because they go from the way not by the way because they go in it It concludes as much as if the way to Rome were not the way because some men do not finde it Secondly they professe from their hearts as they say to follow Scripture as near â—s they can but do they from their hearts professe it Thirdly if most learned men do erre grossely and follow most contradictorie opinions c. it seems then some most learned men think this is the way Fourthly if they follow most contradictorie opinions and yet follow Scripture the fault must be in them for you dare not say there is any contradiction in Scripture Fifthly they may be in way of Salvation though some do erre in the sense of Scripture as it is drawn down in application to some points of question Sixthly there should have been considered here a possibilitie of recrimination with more advantage against the Adversary For how many of them do erre in following the Church and are more prone to erre because the Church is more variable and their traditions which they say are part of the rule are not written In particular how many of them passionately differ from one another about the subject of Ecclesiastick power about temporall power whether the Pope hath any then whether direct or indirect How many of them hotly maintained contrary opinions in the Council of Trent And yet I hope they followed the Church For if they held Scripture the rule they were Adversaries to my Adversary Seventhly Therefore since men may finde your way and yet erre by it and not finde Scripture and yet erre by it for the Church may for ought is proved teach errour the Scripture not let fools go that way and most learned men goe the way of Scripture My Argument then is yet good That way which the Church goes we must go And this they will not deny But the Church goes the way of Scripture and this they cannot deny Nor is there any direct Answer made thereunto Therefore Neither is my fourth Answer answered Therefore may we conclude contradictorily to his conclusion of this number the visible Church is not this Judge by submission to the judgement whereof we are secured from all errour Num. 3. S. 2. 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 infallibilitie to their Judge Ans And from what was said before all that you reply to my answer is easily answered for no Religion but yours doth say that there must be a formall visible Judge of all controversies infallible And as for us we say there is no need of such a Judge and our principles do conclude negatively to such a Judge For whereas we say God's written word hath plainly set down all things necessary to salvation as you do relate it we also by consequence inferre that there is no need of controversie in things necessary because the Scripture hath plainly determined those points which are necessary already which how true it is we shall shew in answer to your third Chapter All other Sectaries agreeing with you in that point I understand not how you could say that none but we hold an infallible Judge Ans If you include us here amongst the Sectaries as you seem to do we deny the charge And we say we are no more Sectaries than the Catholick was before Papacie had head or foot in the world We say as he my name is Christian my sir-name is Catholick We have made no such change of Doctrine as to be accounted Hereticks as you call us nor of Discipline as to be accounted Schismaticks but we should not appear so innocent unlesse Romans should first accuse us And secondly there are no Sectaries but you that do maintain the contrary unlesse they be Anabaptists and Enthusiasts which make themselves infallible Judges as your single Church makes it self an infallible Judge For Thirdly those who hold the Scripture to set down plainly all things necessary are not in this Sectaries as seems to be intimated in the former words Nor fourthly by holding the Scripture to have plainly set down things necessary do they inferre that there is a necessity of an infallible Judge to decide all controversies which may spring up For their opinion includes the contrary And therefore upon the whole matter the former words are not so rationally delivered And what he saies afterwards that without an infallible Guide every man might proceed as if your faith were fallible and so give an infallible assent to nothing is indeed gratis dictum For if this discourse be resolved as it must be into this proposition Without an infallible Guide our faith is fallible and we can give infallible assent to nothing it will appear to be salse because the proposition is false as it is taken universally For though in points of question I cannot give an assent infallibly to a Judge unlesse I do give an assent infallible to this Judge's being infallible yet we hope we may give an infallible assent to those things which are plain in Scripture and not questioned Yea secondly I may give an infallible assent to that which is in question without an infallible Judge external because by his agitation of it I may see it plainly resolved into the sense of Scripture which indeed is the formall rationall end of all Councils that by the conference of learned men the meaning of Scripture as to the case may be cleared The former discourse therefore is plainly fallacious a dicto secundum quid or a particulari as if because we cannot have an infallible faith of things disputed without an infallible Judge we could have no faith in any thing but fallible Yea it is false in those particulars debated for we may have a faith infallible of them by Scripture though the Judge ministeriall be not infallible The faith objective is infallible in the Scripture and the faith may he infallible subjective by the rule of Scripture and yet the Judge fallible because we may make use of the Fathers of the Church as Consuls not as Dictators In the next words he would vindicate himself from saying that without such a Judge we should be free to follow without any fault our private Judgement in holding what we will as you insinuate But I said otherwise every man might be free to believe what he judged best and so we should have as many Religions as there be private and different judgements c. Ans He doth me wrong in saying that I
put in such words as I knew how to answer and leaved out his true words I altered no words but expounded him in them as I had reason For if every one might be left free without such a Judge to what he judged best this freedome would be simple or morall If simple then it would be without a fault and if morall it would be without a fault but now he denies that he meant a morall freedome Yet is it best for him to understand such a freedome according to his principles for if we have not a morall freedome without a fault to believe what we judge best then have we lesse reason of giving undisputed assent to an externall Judge since we are awed and commanded under peril of a fault to take heed what we do believe And therefore cannot we believe this Judge with blind obedience because it seems now we may not believe what we will but we must see good reason for what we do believe And good reason it is that good reason should exclude blind obedience And indeed his consequence is false in terminis for we have not a simple freedome to believe what we will as I said because the understanding naturally assents to truth apparent But this he takes no notice of as if I had said no such thing How much of my words he takes away privatively which must inferre a variation of my sense may be gathered by compare of my copy with his rehersall and it appears that negatively he hath taken away a great part of my words for he saies to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so his argument is null and his vindication nullified Onely I must also note that he did not well weigh his own consequence if every man were left free to hold what he judged best we should have as many Religions as private judgements for in principles of Religion we are not like to differ if we believe the Scripture and particular Controversies which you direct your discourse to if you speak ad idem if not you are more to be blamed do not make different Religions because then you must have different Religions amongst your selves In the begining of this number my Adversary would faine take me tripping or enterfearing upon my own words by a consequence Num. 4. because as he thinks I take away all meanes of regulating our judgement and yet say we should not follow our own judgement of discretion without meanes of regulating our judgement Ans His reason may well be put into this forme he that taketh away all infallible means takes away all means able to produce an infallible assent but I take away all infallible means Then I deny his assumption I do not deny all infallible meanes I do not deny all meanes because I deny some to be infallible and I do not deny all infallible means because I deny some that he thinks infallible in both he would impose upon me the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a particulari All means are not infallible and there may be and is other infallible meanes besides those which he supposeth and I deny The Scripture is an infallible mean to hold to this I deny the infallibilitie of Councils And then again secondly I deny a necessity of infallible assent to all points of question either part of the contradiction may consist with salvation For corroboration of his opinion about the infallibilitie of Councils he brings in afterward St. Gregory the Great 's saying I do professe my self to reverence the first four Councils as I reverence the four books of the Gospell And in like manner I do receive the fifth Council whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anathema Ans First we do not think the judgement of St. Gregory to be greater than the judgement of the four Councils if we do not think them infallible we have no cause or reason to be urged with one Gregory Secondly we also reverence the learning of that Gregory as he reverenceth the books of the Gospell if the as be taken in similitude not proportion in the quality not equality Thirdly if the opinion of St. Gregory should prevaile with me why doth not the Authority of the Fathers whom I produced for our cause and the answers I gave to his Authorities before prevaile with him Testem quem quis inducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se Fourthly let us marke his own words And I also receive the fifth Councill in like manner Now the fifth Council was that of Constantinople wherein Vigilius was condemned in his defence of the three Chapters And the Council proceeded without his consent yea and against his mind So that if St. Gregory's authoritie were authentick the cause were spoiled for so infallibilitie should not be stated in a Council with the Popes confirmation Fifthly oppose and confront Gregory with Gregory Nazianzen with the Roman and which of them shall we believe for Councils Neither doth the whole machin of our Religion tople and tumble to the ground upon my former principle as he imagined though he would presse me more strongly to shew upon what Authoritie I take Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God This by the way should not have been brought into question with us since we give more reverence to the Scriptures than they do and therefore are like to have a firmer faith in it to be the word of God than they The main design of my Adversary at first I suppose was to debate the faith of particular points the Scripture being supposed to be the word of God although not supposed by him to be the onely rule But therefore let me returne his own words changing the tables that the whole machin of his Religion doth tople and tumble to the ground upon his ground by pressing him to shew by what authority he takes Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God before he hath proved the infallibilitie of the Church His reason follows because there cannot be a more groundless ground upon which you by rejecting the infallible authority of the Church are forced to build your whole religion to wit that you by meer reading of Scripture can by its light as you discover the sun by its light discover it so manifestly to be the undoubted word of God that this discovery sufficeth to ground your infallible assent to that verity Ans First he is not surely right in this that I am forced by rejecting his way of believing Scripture to this way If he be then I am right in the choice of my principle upon my refusal of his but Mr. Chillingworth whom he blames me for differing from in this point does find as it may seem and as he himself professeth a middle way of grounding faith in the Scripture to be the word of God namely by the authoritie of universall Tradition which as any can distinguish from this way so he doth distinguish from the Pontifician
worship ye know not what If the woman was not to be ruled by the judgement of the Samaritans why is a Cobler to be ruled by the authoritie of others since simply the authoritie of the Samaritans was as good as the authoritie of others and therefore our faith must be resolved into some higher ground than the authoritie of men He goes on in his case And you give him leave after he hath perused the definitions of this Council defining God the Son to be of the self same individuall substance with his Father to examine them untill he find them resolved into the infallible rule of Scripture Ans Yes we say he may take his own liberty to do so But also we say he ought to conferre with those who are learned that he may more easily finde the sense of Scripture the advice he takes from others doth not determine his assent but disposeth it It doth point him to it but he must see it with his own sight He doth examine them and chiefly how they doe agree with that text St. John the 10. chap. 30. verse I and my Father are one on which text you afterwards confesse the infallibilitie of this definition to be chiefly grounded Ans So did St. Athanasius professe as I told him in my last rejoinder and he doth not say any thing in deniall But as to the point as being clear in Scripture there are other texts plain enough as in the first Epistle of St. John the fifth chap. the twentieth verse in his son Jesus Christ this is the true God Indeed the whole verse is for our purpose And we know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding that we should know him that is true And we are in him that is true in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God He hath given us a mind that we should know Here is faith infused whereby we know him and therefore is not this faith an effect of the authoritie of the Church And this son is here said to be the true God not onely God nuncupatively as the Arrians and Socinians but the true God So Bartholomeus Petrus who makes the Supplement to Estius's Comment upon the Epistles and subjects all to the holy Roman Church Et nihil ominus etiam Filius ab Apostolo verbis expressis nominatur verus Deus parte hujus versus quarta quae sequitur hic est verus Deus So he And notwithstanding also the Son is named by the Apostle in expresse words the true God in the fourth part of this verse this is the true God Now in the examen of the conformitie of this definition with this text the Arrian Cobler by his poor understanding is easily able to see that which a wiser man would yet see sooner that he is put upon a necessitie to inquire how God the Son and his Father are one whether it be by affection onely as Arrians hold or one in the self same individuall Substance as the Council defineth Well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then This is no other than that which stands with our duty of obedience to that precept in the first Ep. to the Thes 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good And secondly were we to rest in the definition of Councils yet should we be put upon inquiry into the sense of their words which would make a trouble and a difference as the words of the Trent Council did to Soto and Viga And therefore if he could prejudice our cause with perplexities of ambiguities neither are they certain by their own Councils which sense to stand to since these learned men so eagerly combated upon different senses of the words of the Council upon the Decrees about Free-will and Predestination and though they had their interesse in the Council for learning and estimation yet it seems did not know the onely sense and true scope of the Synod as is said of them in the History of the Trent Council p. 216. My Adversary goes on And inquiring this he cals to mind that other text John the 17.21 Where Christ prayeth all his Disciples may be one thing as thou Father in me and I in thee So then let him proceed with the caution of this rule res non est subject a sermoni sed sermo rei The thing is not serviceable to the speech but the speech to the thing Here will the Cobler say because he hath been often instructed by his own Doctors Christ who said I and my Father are one thing demandeth that his Disciples may be one thing as he and his Father are one thing but he doth not demand that his Disciples may be all one thing in the self same individuall substance therefore he concludes Christ is not one thing in the self same individuall substance with his Father but one thing in affection onely as his Disciples might come to be one thing Ans But this Cobler if he had more mind to finde truth in Scripture than his own opinion might goe on and see that the Jews who were like to understand the words of Christ as observing what was said by him to them understood Christ not to speak that they were one by way of affection For because of this speech they took up stones to cast at him because he being a man made himself God as it is in the 33 ver of the 10. ch of St. John Which interpretation of his words our Saviour did not in the following verses deny although he seemed to wave that sense and yet also in effect brought it in by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 38 ver Secondly although if there had been no other text concerning Christ's Divinity there would not have been so clear a conclusion from the text of the Divinity of Christ yet if we compare it with other passages of the Scriptures we may well believe that sense and also if the text doth not afford that sense how shall we believe a Council when the Councill of Nice as Athanasius said urged this text thrice against the Arrians And therefore this exception against the sufficient clearnesse of Scripture in this point must be withdrawn or else they must condemne themselves because the Council of Nice determined the point not by their authority but by the text And therefore cannot the Cobler say as my Adversary prompts him false therefore is this definition of the Council which cannot be resolved into the infallible word of God in which all things necessary to Salvation as this point is are plainly set down as this place is not My Adversary first might have spoken more moderately not false is it therefore which the Council hath defined but not necessary because the sense of the words may be such when they are spoken betwixt God or him and his Disciples therefore they are such between his Father and him this is no rationall inference Duo cum idem dicunt non est idem When
particularly in what points we have divided from all Churches Indeed it is the safest way not to come to particulars for fear of discovery In generalibus latet totâ—s But let us come up closely to him Either the Fathers of the Primitive Church are on my Adversary's side in the points of difference or our's or have not expressed themselves sufficiently on either part but the Fathers of the Primitive times are not on my Adversary's side For there was none of those points which we have named held by them and my Adversary did know that some of ours have confronted Campion's challenge about the Fathers with another challenge to the Romanists to shew so much as one Father one Doctor in the Primitive times that hath expressed himself for them in the points of difference Then if they have expressed themselves and if not we have not opposed them they are on our side because we are upon contradictions Thus we see what is become of his unanswerable Argument We see that we can differ from them without opposition to the Catholick Church better than they can differ from us without opposition to the Catholick Church because we in our difference from them have kept the Catholick faith which they have warped from And so that which is left behind in the number will never come up to fight us to any purpose For as for the Reformers opposing the Church because they censured that which was proposed by the Papists as opposite to the word of God we take our Reformation from Scripture and also we say it is not necessary in points of difference to conclude that what is by them urged is opposite to the word of God For it is enough to us to differ upon the negative to the word of God since our principle is that the Scripture is a sufficient rule of faith and practise And therefore though a point proposed doth not oppose Scripture as not being contradictory yet we reject it from being any Article of faith because it is not contained in Scripture And thus the negative authority of Scripture doth sufficiently conclude against any other article of faith than what is in it And as for our not naming in this whole age one age in this last thousand years wherein Christ had a truly Catholick Church agreeing with you in those many and most important points wherein your Reformers taxed us to have opposed the Scriptures This in effect hath been answered before and hath not any thing materially new But first this is always an unreasonable demand which goes upon a certain presumption of the Romanist that the true Church must be alwaies conspicuously visible which is to be denied and therefore it doth not follow that because we cannot name any Church agreeing with us therefore there was none Secondly if he means by a truly Catholick Church one particular Church of the Catholick those whom we have named did not agree with them in the most important points of difference as not in point of Discipline nay they have differed from them and therefore have agreed with us in the questions betwixt us And besides if they meane a truely Catholick Church in this sense as a part of the whole then a particular Church it seems may be a Catholick and a truely Catholick Church and therefore have they no reason to vaunt of the title of Catholick given by the Antients to the Church or Bishop of Rome because other Churches may also be Catholick and why then should the Pope usurp the title of universall Bishop over a particular Church And if he means by a truely Catholick Church the Catholick Church properly then he doth imply a contradiction that the Catholick Church which includes all ages should be limited to a thousand yeares But thirdly he did wisely stint the question for this thousand yeares since he could not well go further for the six hundred years before do shew no disagreement to us in the most important points of difference And let them assure themselves that our agreement with the six hundred of the Primitive Church is more available for our defence than the supposed disagreement with the thousand years after is available to the accusation Fourthly suppose no one Church could be named corresponding with us in most important points for this thousand yeares yet even in every age of the thousand yeares there might be and some have named severall persons which have held the materiall points of difference betwixt us and severall of the Roman Communion have bore testimony to the truth yea even in the Trent Council in so much that they have been complained of for bending to Protestâ—ntisme as may be seen through the History of that Council Fifthly what Tyranny is this to stifle and smother by their domination all other Churches as much as they could which were not of their faith and then challenge us to shew what Church agreed with us Sixthly Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is then we are to take a true Church from trial of Scripture and we put it to this issue All Catholick Churches agree with Scripture in the most important points of difference we agree with Scripture or Scripture with us in these points therefore we agree with all Catholick Churches in these points because we agree in tertio Therefore if the Romanists differ let them look to it We differ from none but them in those points and that we differ from them is their fault and our security If they had not left the Catholick to be a singular Plenipotentiarie we had not left Communion with them as a part of the whole or rather they had not left our Communion Delictum ambulat cum Capite And as for that he says And as for externall division you cannot name the Church upon earth from which you did not divide your selves at your Reformation We return it with the necessary changes nor can they at their Deformation name the Church upon earth from which they did not divide themselves And I challenge them to tell me if they can to what Church on earth then visible they did joine themselves or who acknowledged to be of their Communion But first as for external Communion we say moreover first we divided not first Communion but the Pope when in the time of Queen Elizabeth he sent a Bill to prohibit his Subjects Communion with us 2. We divided not from their Church simply but so as corrupted and engaging us upon communion with them to error and bad practise We left the house as infected with a mind of returning when it shall be clear and safe for us Thirdly as before we divided not from the Primitive times in point of Doctrine or Discipline now then suppose there was not at the Reformation any other Church unto which we might joine which is more agreable to the duty and honor of a Church to joine with a corrupt Church in Doctrine and practise or to leave their communion externall
the Council or after If before also then we see that one man is not to be controlled by a multitude and therefore why are we upbraided in our Religion with the paucity of the Professors If after then we see that a Council is not an effectuall meanes to put an end to all Controversies Fifthly he doth not advisedly put in these words the lawfull Pastor confirming their Acts. This is not discreetly applied to the Council of Nice for as to this he was first deceived in thinking we would swallow his supposition of the lawfull Pastor in his sense of universality and singularity We deny the Pope to be the lawfull Pastor Secondly Liberius did subscribe S. Athanasius's banishment and how shall we then take the confirmation of a Council from a Pope when he subscribes against it Thirdly the Nicene Council was not confirmed by the Bishop of Rome more than by some other Bishop Yea as it was called By the Emperor Constantine so was it confirmed by him And therefore by my Aduersaries principles The authority of the Nicene Council should be but humane because it had not its esse formale by the Pope Yea sixthly neither is it necessary that after the Nicene Council he should oppose a greater humane authority upon the authority of the Council as if it had been more than humane for he opposed the greater part before Seventhly he did not well consider what he said for if he might oppose upon his supposition a greater humane authority then untill they prove the authority of a Council to be Divine so as infallibly assisted with infallibility there may be a greater authority than of the Nicene Council which is not true notwithstanding And if he meant so he opppsed a Generall Council more than I. In the following words of this number I was glad to finde him so soberly defending the title of Roman Catholicks He saies To avoid this very strife impertinent now to our purpose I used that very name by which no others are excluded This is ingeniously said but he knew that the Romanists are wont to usurp this title And I had good reason to take good notice of it lest my silence should be mis-interpreted For some are wont to take advantage at what is said and also at what is not said But indeed doth he give up the title to the use of others also as not exclusive to them neither in comprehension which would make a contradiction nor in jurisdiction then why doe men contend so much for the Roman Church as Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches Why is added in their Creed to the Catholick Church the Roman Why in the Trent Council was none accounted Catholicks but them Indeed also this is the wisest course if the knot cannot be untied to cut it off so he to avoide the proof of the appropriation of the title to them hath denied the appropriation But this confession I suppose the Priests of Rome would not well accept for in very deed it goes near to the ruining of the cause And this plainly contradicts himself in his own principles thus the Catholick Church is infallible so he says still The Roman Church is onely infallible So he said in the end of the former Treatise then the Roman Church is onely Catholick Now he says he did not exclude other Churches and yet no Church Catholick but the Roman And in this impertinent strife you say many things of which you prove not one If such a put-off might be allowed to me I might soon have done I need not say much to what is said because so little is said to any purpose But he knew he was pinched by mention of the falsification of the Nicene Council about the superiority of the Bishop of Rome and severall other particulars which needed no proof to an intelligent man let the world judge whether if any thing could be excepted against what I said solidly my Adversary would have forborne the offering of it to consideration And also to my former vindication of our Doctrine about the authority of Councils which had four answers he replies nothing but that of Athanasius which might more happily have been left out In the twelfth number he would refute me by noting a dangerous consequence flowing from the premisses of our Doctrine Num. 12. his discourse is resolved into this Syllogisme Texts of Scripture are not able to decide all necessary controversies unlesse as they send us to the Church by themselves as I shall shew in my next ch But I hold texts of Scripture onely infallible Therefore we shall never have an end of Controversies unlesse we understand the texts of Scripture which speake of Christ's promises to the Church of assistance infallible as St. Math. 28. ult and others which we shall have an account of in the next ch This is the sum of his ratiocination Ans We shall shew the civility not to prevent the use and businesse of the next ch but this reasoning will be valid no where it will not grow stronger by the next age Therefore we say not to repeat repetitions that as to the major proposition we deny it upon our account of all necessary Controversies although not upon his account All things plainly necessary are so laid down in Scripture as there needs be no controversie thereabouts In things of question simple error doth not damn But those who make no difference of belief by respect to object or use but do take all upon the proposall of the Church are apt to enlarge the number of things necessary because all upon that account are with equall necessity to be received And yet as hath been noted they have no reason to multiply the number of necessary Controversies for with them there is no necessity of believing any thing but this that the Church is infallible But then secondly as to the major if he meane by themselves so as the Scriptures should formally decide Controversies he fights with his own shadow for it doth not contradict when we do not affirme we say not that formally any Controversie is decided by texts of Scripture but that in things plain there is no necessity of any such decision and in many Controversies the Scripture doth as well in the principles decide it as the Law doth differences civil If he meanes by themselves therefore so as that they do not decide them without sending us to the Church we answer by distinguishing that first in things plaine there is no need of the judgement of the Church In things of Controversie there is need of the Church but not need of infallible determination There is an ending of Controversies speculatively when the judgement is resolved by infallible Scripture there is an ending of Controversies practically by authority of the Church so as to binde the person against disturbance Now the question betwixt us is of the former ending of Controversies which cannot be performed by the Church And dare any man that soberly reads all
thus Since you bring the authority of Councils to a little more than nothing and again the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing in order to the ending of Controversies this your violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers will give me leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the begining appeared possible for it is evident out of your own words that it is to no end to deale with you out of Fathers and I am resolved to deale with no body but to some end I will therefore humor you in this and I will lay aside all that might hereafter be said concerning the opinion of Fathers Ans Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem My Adversary is so curious in this apology of his that he is to be suspected I gave no such occasion but he takes it against the use of the Fathers in this point I am not guilty in any sober mans judgement of any privative disrepect unto them I do not bring the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing what is due justly either to Councils or to Fathers I do willingly give But because infallibility is not granted therefore am I charged with disrespect This is a fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that denies them this doth not deny unto them such reverence as is equal And for the Fathers I have not waved any testimony which hath been produced against our cause I have not said as he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea I have used the same Argument against my Adversaries in triumphum Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he in his Rhetorick but I have said nothing which is not conformable to the word of God to the consent of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church but because I will not make the word of the Fathers and of the Doctors equall to the infallible word of God therefore am I not reasonably accused of slighting the Fathers and Doctors of the antient Church But this was necessary for my Adversary to colour his refusall of answering to those Fathers I brought against him and to the answers which I gave to the testimonies of the Fathers which he brought against me So difficulty is sometimes by Sophisters construed for impertinency By this Argument I must say nothing proper but what may be easily answered But it had been more ingenuous first to have exhibited solid authorities out of the Fathers of the Primitive antiquity or at least to have given a sufficient answer to my refutation of what use he made of those he quoted against me and then to have laid aside the urging of the Fathers upon my account of Refusall of them onely as infallible Judges To gather up then my exceptions against this part of his apologie I say first I do not either in terms or by consequence bring Councils to a little more than nothing nor the authority of the Fathers to little lesse than nothing in order to the ending of Controversies I allow them to be of great use in his terms in order to the ending of Controversies There may be an ordinability of them towards or in order to this end without infallibility in them they may finde out and give us the infallible sense of Scripture but we cannot take it so upon their word their authority is moving but not cogent of our assent Secondly I except against those words wherein he imputes to me a violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers This I deny Neither in termes nor by discourse can they finde such words or sense from me I have used their own weapon against them I have answered their objections from them I renew the provocation and challenge which Bishop Jewell and others of our Divines have made to them to shew if they can any notable part yea any two yea any one of the ancient Fathers that clearly and constantly hath professed the points wherein we differ from them And if the Fathers had been for them why did they corrupt some passages of the Fathers which spoke against them which they have not yet cleared themselves of Yea thirdly whereas he says my refusall of the Fathers will give him leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the beginning I say not insisting here upon the impropriety of a Treatise if it be no more as to my satisfaction or of the terme if it be more that there had been rome enough for all the Fathers authorities he could produce for himself and also for all that he could say to my answers about their testimonies without Theremaking his Treatise so long if he had left out impertinences and references and repetitions Therefore hath my Adversary taken more liberty than I afforded him in his refusall of dealing with the Fathers yet not more liberty than was necessary for him lest he should be in necessity to answer what answers I made to his former testimonies of them and also to what testimonies I have produced against him And I finde him wary lest I should make this advantage of his resolution to wave the Fathers He would make it to be no design but a rationall purpose therefore he goes on But doe not think that I doe this as if what you here said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me or as if what you say were in the least degree hard to be answered for you yourself cannot be ignorant that we alleadge plenty of the Fathers against you as are confessed by your selves to have been the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church Ans The rule is good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And surely he is not damned that doth not believe that all which is said by men on their own behalf is true But secondly they do not produce many testimonies of the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church namely not of the first 300 years nay nor of the first 600 years others are Postnates and have not the honor of Primitive Antiquity Yea some they name as testimonies for them were not Fathers And some works they cite for them which are falsely ascribed to true Fathers as several of our Writers have demonstrated even with the Confession of some of their Church Thirdly whereas he saies Do not think that I do this as if what you have said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me he wrongs me with a fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he would have men believe that I spake against the authority of the Fathers simply because I spake against their authority as absolutely convictive of the understanding in point of truth And also whereas he saies it did not find credit with him I am of his opinion for certainly little is like to be believed by the Pontificians that is against them But after this manner his Treatise might soon be answered it finds not credit with me One blot would serve for all the Treatise Fourthly what
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
them as they think fit to take Kings out of the way But this by the way Indeed their Church will lead us to Rome but not to truth The universall Church will lead us sooner to truth than to Rome But what way have we to lead us to this way If the Church were the Kings high way how shall we know how to get into the road If we had a mind to go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Fathers sense the midle way we should make use of the universall Church to find that which is held to be Scripture and then go in the way of Scripture which is Gods High way And surely the Royall law is like to be the Royall way And which is more reasonable that the Scripture should be onely a directory to the Church or the Church a directory to Scripture if the former then when we know the Church we may leave the direction of Scripture and bid it goe back for now we know thâ— way and so the Scripture should not be necessary which yet is held by the Papists generally and elsewhere acknowledged bâ— my Adversary if the latter then is the Scripture the high way to truth And therefore in the debate of truth the appeale lies from the Church to Scripture not contrariwise And so it must for a distinct and perfect knowledge of the Church we must have from the Scripture as before So that that which is the rule of the rule must be the rule of that which is ruled even in that wherein it is a rule So then in the search of truth we must make the Scripture to be the way of our resolution because by it we must know distinctly the Church And not onely so in the search of this truth which is the true Church but in other truths too which are necessary unlesse the Scripture should refer us to the Church absolutely for truth which is not yet demonstrated Therefore as to humane perswasion we plead the Church as to faith we plead the Scripture By the Church we come to know what goes for truth in it but by Scripture we come to know whether that which goes for truth be so indeed In things of question and of discipline we are not stoicall to the Church but in business of faith we must be Scepticks notwithstanding were there any need in such things to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Things of faith may prevent questions on either side things of question require no faith by necessity of matter on either side That he adds since by that means of Scripture onely either neither side will be victorious or it is a hazard whether is not necessary to be answered since we have formerly shewed the necessity of appealing to Scriptures and disputing out of them onely as to faith in things of faith which my Adversary would deny me upon this ground because this debate out of Scripture would not afford a certain and clear victory And as for victory we hope they intend it not No body is to get the victory in these disputes for they are undertaken for truth And for what is necessary to be believed we have in Scripture the plain truth and what is not necessary one may have that victory and not the truth and so one may have the truth and not the victory Let them shew us truth and they shall not stay for the victory That which follows in this Sexion is conveniently retorted and more to my Adversary These things he might have learned from the antientest Fathers as before if he had regarded their Doctrine Yet since their authority hath so low a place in his esteem in order to the finding out of truth which is against them he doth not lay aside all that might be said out of the Fathers to humor me as he says but upon some other good reason methinks he should not so far spare his Adversary if he did see him not to be well guarded on that part But it is like the truth is when they produce the Fathers for them then we must be their Children absolutely which is more than they would have us doe but when we produce the Fathers for us then they will not be their children at all They must have the Fathers come all the way to them otherwise they have nothing to say to them Surely we had more reason to refuse any dealing with the Fathers because we cannot recognize them as infallible than my Adversaries who acknowledge them when they please them to be such And if the consent of the Fathers be part of their principles they bragge of they are to stand to their own principles when we dispute with them out of them or else they betray them We are not bound to stand to their principles but they are bound by their own Laws to answer to them Therefore this declining of any return to what I say out of the Fathers or to my answers to what he said because I will not own them as unerrable must be set down a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Par. 14. So the beginning of the fourteenth Par. wherein you say I cut them off by your own consent all you say concerning St. Cyprian and the Crisis of St. Austin concerning St. Cyprian might have been spared I have cut it off I see he was ready to take all things for his advantage If I had wholly refused to give any account to the testimonies of the Fathers brought against me then though I had not given him a formal consent it might have been thought on interpretative consent but falsum prius And therefore this is plain Sophistry in him Yet I have a great mind ex abundanti to tell you that St. Austin expressed exceedingly well that Humility and Charity be those virtues which made St. Cyprian and ought to make us submit to generall Councils as a prime point of our bounden duty Ans I take leave to say that he hath skipped all my answers to the instance of St. Cyprian but onely this And then I say that I have also a great mind to differ from him as little as may be If he takâ—s to submit to Generall Councils as controlling turbulent opposition or in points of outward administration of the Church I grant it but if he takes it by an infallibility ingaging faith then I deny it Those virtues are of use to the former submission not to the latter In the first sense of Submission Humility is dispositive but not the actus Imperans as he says of most submissive obedience The actus Imperans of this externall submission is an act of internall obedience to God as commanding such obedience to the orders of those whom under pain of damnation we are bound to obey but in things lawfull and honest onely And no further are we obliged to obedience Therefore whereas he speaks as if under pain of damnation we are bound to obey them universally it is not so And it will not be Humility to obey
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
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
shewing it to be true Scripture more than they discover in the books of Judith and Tobit shewing them to be true Scripture Ans My Adversary here was very bold to bring into equall compare the books of Judith and Tobit with the book of Numbers one book of the Pentateuch as to the Autopisty thereof But the Jews who say that every letter of Scripture makes a mountain of sense could see more in the book of Numbers than in those Apocryphal books Therefore if we would resolve the acceptance of one and the refusall of the other into a reason of both and ask why the Jew acknowledged the book of Numbers not the other we must find that the acceptance of the one and the disacceptance of the other cannot fall into the account of the Jewish Church its authority because the question will rebound why the Jewish Church did authorize one and not the other And therefore my Adversary gets nothing by this objection for the Church cannot be the reason of the approbation of the one and the preterition of the other because this difference made by the Church must be determined by a judicious act upon good cause For do they dream that the Church hath an arbitrary power to receive one book and to expunge another out of the Canon Did they not excercise in it a judgement of discretion Now he that discernes sees betwixt two and sees cause why one should be taken the other left Every elective act casts the ballance upon more weight And therefore must we not take the recension of books canonicall from the power of the Church And then again secondly this availes not the Roman Church because if the discerning of books canonicall did autocratorically depend upon the Church its declaration yet as it is noted not upon a particular Church 〈◊〉 the universall Church for time and place 〈…〉 the books of Tobit and Judith are 〈◊〉 numbred as Canonicall amongst the rest by the Canon of the Apostles as Caranza sets them out And therefore they saw nothing in them for their reception and yet did in others And if it belongs to the Church authoritatively to declare what books are Canonicall yet cannot the Church have authority to declare more than the Apostles constituted if they take those Canons to be Canons of the Apostles for otherwise they must challenge a power to the Church not only of declaring what is Canonicall but also of making it such which is more than their great Doctors dare affirm And if they will still plead those books Canonicall let them answer it to St. Jerom and St. Cyrill of Jerusalem and to the rest whom they think not to have differed from the Church and yet have differed from them in this But those who will swear no difference we may say are not willing to see it Secondly they must infallibly shew that this very verse in which I find this point is not thrust in amongst other true parts of Scripture or some word changing the sense either thrust in or left out in this verse and this they must know infallibly Ans Again I must say that we are upon the supposall of Scripture and therefore this should not be called into question which is the subject but this for more tediousnesse must be brought in upon all occasions or none But for the uncorruptednes of the text if they will not believe me let them believe Bellarmin as before who denies any substantiall corruption but then again we are as sure as they for we have for it all the authority the Church hath if it be infallible we have it Again the Scripture is corrupted or not If so then by the Roman Church or by some other Not by the Roman Church they will say then by some other is it corrupted If by any other then first how well have they been keepers of Canonicall truth and how then shall we trust them Secondly if corrupted then how do they know that those texts which are produced for them are not corrupted If by the Church they know them not to be corrupted this is the question which is to be proved and therefore cannot yet prove it For as they say we cannot know the Scripture to be infallible by the Scripture so neither can we know infallibly the Church to be infallible by the Church Though it were infallible yet this must be also known infallibly according to my Adversaries argument Indeed if the word of God did leave witnesse to its infallibility then we are satisfied but if the texts of Scripture be corrupted how shall I be sure whether those they make use of be not corrupted Therefore had they best for ever close their mouths against any corruption of Scripture untill they can sufficiently prove that the authority of the Church is principium primo primum in Divinity For the testimony of the Church cannot exceed of it self its genus It can make no more than an high opinion which comes short of and is too low for infallible assurance But then moreover this objection is retorted upon them How can we be infallibly assured that in the Decrees and Canons of Council there should be no corruption that one thing is not thrust in or somewhat left out since we know that there was a falsification of the Nicene Council as before Since they have corrupted passages of the Fathers as before Since some words of the Decrees of the Council of Trent were changed after the vote as appear in the History So then in this respect as in others we may conclude they have no reason to accuse our way of uncertaintie for we may be sure of this that no way is so full of uncertainties as theirs If the Scripture be true they may be a Church if false they may be Heathens What he says Thirdly after all this c. hath in it no such difficultie as they imagin for the words themselves incorrupted do shew their own sense as being for the things necessary spoken in a plain and common acception And also their Decrees and Canons as before are to be sure more obnoxious to diversitie of sense because they were framed at least some of them for such a capacitie Neither if some things be expressed figuratively doth any such perplexity arise because the figurative expression doth not oppose the literall sense so much as it doth sometimes illustrate it And this kind of speech as to Sacraments in regard of the relation betwixt the sign and the thing signified is indeed naturall and proper Though the manner of speech be not proper simply yet quoad hoc as to Sacraments it is proper And my Adversary might have taken notice that St. Austin hath noted as before that things darkly set down in one place are to be compared with other places where they are delivered more clearly And therefore that which follows about the ambiguity in what sense we must take the words if we go by Scripture only might very well have been
spared For as we do not argue in Divinity from texts mystically delivered unlesse the mysticalnesse be rendred in Scripture so we do not account those texts which are ambiguous to be such as to contain points necessary to salvation Therefore is my Adversary very wide in this discourse because it goeth upon a supposition that every text is necessarily to be understood and infallibly in the sense thereof This can be denied freely without any detrement to our cause Might we not therefore smile at that which follows as if we were bound infallibly to know the secret free will of God for which we must have a revelation or else our cause should be lost What is this to the contradiction of us unlesse we were either obliged to know infallibly all senses of all texts or unlesse those texts which contain points necessary were so doubtfull in the sense thereof We deny both The Scripture is in the sense And as to points necessary the revelation is in the words no need of a revelation of the sense after the revelation of the words because the sense is revealed in the words As if when our Savior saith This is eternall life to know thee the onely true God and him whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ we must yet have an eternall labor to find out distinctly in what sense we must take plain necessary truths As if when our Savior commands us to repent and believe we had need of another revelation or an infallible Judge to tell us in what sense we must take the words As if when our Saviour says that he hath revealed these things to babes we must go to the Holy Father of Rome and the Fathers of a Councill for an uncontrolable exposition of these things If then by the secret free will of God Gods purposes of binding us in our obedience that as to things necessary is revealed in the termes His voluntas signi as they speak as to these things necessary is plainly delivered and otherwise the expression were not good if we needed another revelation of the sense Indeed the voluntas bene placiti as to his actions that needs a revelation but what is this to our purpose The former will how he would expresse himself was free to him before he did reveal himself in such writings but afterwards it was determined by the plain signification of the words as to those matters of faith And where do they find this revelation in Scripture that we must go to the Church for a revelation of the sense of difficult texts Yea of those texts which concern the Church How shall we know whether those texts be rightly interpreted and know it infallibly Not by the Church For the question is of the Church Not by a revelation made to particular persons for then we might have a revelation of other texts in the sense of them Therefore must they say they are plain And if so then so may other texts be especially such as respect necessity to salvation Therefore when we have tried all ways as to faith we must center in Scripture And let them think upon that of Christ to St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What he says Fourthly I have little to say to The authorites of Sanctius and Sharpius which he produceth are more for my advantage than his For my Adversary confesseth that learned Sanctius confesseth that holy Scripture in those things which are necessary is clear Secondly as for the nineteen rules which he gives as necessary to the knowledge thereof this may respect other texts of Scripture which do not contemn necessary points Thirdly if those rules be intended as to the knowledge of what is necessary to salvation and not to the knowledge of Scripture in generall yet the difficulty must not be great even by those rules for how then can Scripture be clear as to things necessary Yea also St. Austin gives rules for the understanding of Scripture and yet holds that Scripture as to faith and manners plainly delivers things necessary as before Neither is it necessary for our cause to exclude the use of means for the understanding of Scripture even in things necessary It is sufficient to us that by the use of means those texts are so plain as that we have no need of an external infallible Judge But we can admit with Sharpius the means he names to know originall Languages to discusse the words Phrases and Ebraisms to confer the places which are like and unlike to one another as to the understanding of Scripture de communi and they are necessary but he cannot mean these rules to be necessary for the understanding of every truth in Scripture And therefore if his authority were sufficient yet cannot this he says be effectuall to prove a necessity of all these means as to the finding out of the sense of those texts wherein necessary truths are laid down That Jesus is the Christ that whosoever believeth shall be saved that there is a necessity of good works are truths so plain as he that cannot use those means may plainly discern and therefore need we not the help of those rules as to produce infallibility To be even then with my Adversary for these authorities we may also urge as the Arch Bishop of Collen who as before reformed his Church by the rule of Scripture so also the Cardinall of Rochester who in the Trent Council said It was better to take for our ground the Scripture whence true Theology is taken than the subtilties of Philosophy which the Schools have used Hist Trent Counc Pag. 197. 8. And add hereunto the uncertainties of the sense of a Council as appears by contest of Soto and Viga Hist Tr. Counc 216. As for the saying of that so much esteemed Chillingworth which he adds fifthly namely no more certain sign that a point is not evident than when honest understanding and indifferent men such as give themselves liberty of judgment after mature consideration of the matter do differ about Unto which he subsumes About how many points do you and your Brethren differ which I have in this chap. shewed to be points mainly necessary to salvation which according to this rule of knowing what is evident what not are evidently not set down plainly in Scripture What comes this to but a confusion For Mr. Chillingworth gives us the Maxim and my Adversary makes the assumption upon presumption that he hath proved many things to be differed about which he saith he hath shewed to be necessary to salvation By Mr. Chillingworth's rule those points should not be necessary because we differ about them But my Adversary would fain prove it may be that Mr. Chillingworth's rule is false If it be false how can he use it against me If it be not false then it concludes more against him however till he proves our differences to be about necessaries his discourse hath neither forme nor truth upon his part Some twelve lines of this number
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
not this also that a Minister of the Gospell may competently inform the people in the necessaries to salvation And if a Minister can do it surely the Church But the stresse of the discourse lies in this whether what the Church can doe may not sufficiently be done without the Church And then secondly if not without the Church whether it may not be done without the Church its infallibility Now to this last my Adversary speaks thus that he stands not upon this whether this competent direction should be called an infallible direction or not No doth he not Then he seemeth to yield that which he hath so much contended for the infallibilitie of the Church that that is not necessary He hath formerly urged the infallibility of the Church to ground faith now he either grants that we may be saved without faith or that faith may be grounded without infallibility which indeed in my opinion doth yield the cause But then also they will give us leave to note that the cause betwixt the Romanist and us as to verbum non Scriptum is also yielded hereby for if he will sit down with this postulate that the Church may competently direct us to happinesse through the Scriptures then the word not written is secluded from a competent direction to salvation For the word not written is absolutely contradistinguished to Scriptures And therefore I see no reason we should goe further in this work which is not so hard as tedious But that he calls us back with an Epanorthosis Though we think it most certain that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happinesse Well will they stand to this Where shall we have them If it can then as before If it cannot upon their second thoughts then we say absolute loquendo we grant it thus that the Church not proposing any infallible direction cannot competently direct us and therefore untill they prove the Church infallible in their traditions infallible too or as to the interpreting of Scripture they have no cause by their own argument to obtrude so often the authority of the Church because it is no competent direction to happiness unlesse it be infallible as they now think But take the Church as proposing Scripture which we have hitherto made plain sufficiently as to things necessary so though the Church be not infallible in its own direction yet being considered as bringing Scripture which is infallible it may competently direct unto happinesse And so these great magnifiers of the Church upon due account have left us in the field to defend the Church when they have left it We can make use of its competent direction with the Scripture which is certain and infallible They cannot make use of the Church without infallibility So then as the Catholick Moderator says of the reformed religion that it cannot be blamed in the point of justification since it lays hold upon that which can certainly save us namely the righteousnesse of Christ so also to be sure here we are on the surer hand because we make use of that which is certainly infallible the Scripture and also of that which gives us some competent direction the Church specially taking the Church universally for place and time It is no question that the present Church cannot end the present controversies Now because by the way I did say our Church could not err in damnative errors you conceive me to grant that it may err in points not damnative Ans This is well put in by the way I did say he spake it more than once and it appeared also to be spoken provisionally that there might be some refuge for the Church if it should be convicted of some error yet not damnative And surely it were better for them to lie close under the buckler of this distinction unlesse they had better arguments to prove universall infallibility But since it may be Mr. Knot 's inconveniences of that distinction have been found prevalent and so it is quitted He expounds himself thus When I said these words I did onely take and subsume that which you your selves most commonly grant unto the Church that it cannot err in damnative matters Ans This but one degree from a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says he meant it as we If he meant it as we how doth he conclude against us We hold it distinctively upon the case of the whole Catholick Church though a particular Church may err in points damnative So then he meaning it as we leaves the way plain to inferr that he held that the Church might err in points not damnative If he did take it as we we are agreed and then by Mr. Knot 's argument infallibility is extinguished He used it formerly in way of distinction and specificatively or not If not then the use of it formerly is none if so then he is lost And they may very easily perswade themselves that we can allow unto them this priviledge of the Church that it hath a main advantage over any Minister or private Interpreter This we can afford unto them without absolute infallibility of the Church If they will be contented with such a priviledge to the Church as no Minister or private Interpreter can have they need not exceed the distinction of the Church's not erring in damnatives specifically taken For a private Minister or Interpreter may erre in damnatives Yea also this exemption from errors damnative in this sense gives a demonstrative reason why we should not follow our own interpretations without apparent cause because the Church universall cannot err in damnatives therefore we should prefer that when we see not plain cause to the contrary and because it may err in other things therefore cannot we absolutely yield the Church obedience of faith for its own sake And our differences from the Church in interpretations are not therefore damnative simply because we differ from the Church but if we contemn the Church which hath authority and more faculty and if we wrest hard texts as some men did in St. Paul's Epistles to their own perdition as St. Peter saith Interpretations may be flatly contrary and not damnative till the Church be proved without possibility of error to be without possibility of error let them then hold the former distinction untill they can make good these two points first that the Church cannot err at all the second that all error is damnative These are two hard propositions and therefore if that which is most hard is most easily broken as the rule is in the Trent History they should do well to break them When the Church shall shew her Commission for her infallibility she may 〈…〉 Commission for our obedience intuitiâ—â— Num. 9. Here he begins I will presse again your text and give a second answer Namely the second Ep. to Tim. 3.16 So then now we shall contend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says we render the word for correction so your Bible reads it And why doth
unto salvation because Timothy as before and also with sufficient plainnesse since the old Testament could do it before the new was consigned but the Scripture taken in complexo doth so Therefore this text is sufficiently full and clear against them And his argument out of this text against me wherein he says he hath a contradictory conclusion against me we will now hear this it is That which in this text is said onely to be profitable for these ends is not thereby said to be sufficient to these ends and yet much lesse sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone but the Scripture in this text is said onely to be profitable to these ends here expressed Ergo Ans The Answer unto this of his may maintains the major of my last Syllogism For thus Estius and my Adversary distinguish upon the major that the Scripture may be profitable and not necessary for these ends and so in effect the Rhemists upon the text that the reading of the Holy Scripture is a great defence and help of the faithfull especially of a Bishop And this is the ground of his Argument We answer therefore first if he means his major thus that what is not said in terms to be so is not said so by consequence neither his minor is not true And if he mean it otherwise it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for we can acknowledge his Conclusion without prejudice to our cause for though it be not said so in terms yet by equivalence and interpretative it is Secondly to the minor we say though it be only said to be profitable yet since it is not said that it is onely profitable it doth not exclude sufficiency that which affirms so much simply doth not simply deny more for then we could no way reconcile divers historicall passages of the Evangelists But that it doth include sufficiency Bellarmin and my Adversary do deny Bellarmin to Chemnitius my Adversary to me Yet Bellarmin stands not so much against the term as if it could not be understood sufficient but contends that the Scripture is not sufficient alone as meat though it be profitable to nutrition yet it is not sufficient alone For if naturall heat be wanting or any other Instrument of the body necessary to nutrition it will not nourish in his fourth B. de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 10. But what is this to the purpose For we doe not maintain the Scripture to be sufficient to salvation alone for there must be faith and repentance and obedience And therefore St. Paul adds upon the place through faith that is in Christ Jesus but we say it is sufficient in suo genere as to direction of us this satisfies our cause If this be confessed we have done As meat is sufficient as to the matter which should nourish so the word of God is sufficient as to the matter of things necessary to be known yea for our comfort too as Isid Clarius upon the text and therefore he says when St. Paul had used many consolations he useth here the greatest For surely it is the most strong consolation to have the Scripture sent from Heaven quae et tantis in tenebris lumen praeferat et gravissima quaeque efficiat ut fiant levia And these comforts he says he did seasonably give him when he was to tell him of the sad news of his departure And as for the word there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we would take aim of the sense by the Syriack since the Greek intimates the Hebrew in the new Testament and the Syriack is called the Hebrew in the new Testament it seems to be so profitable as is sufficient because the word for profitable in the Syriack is taken from a word which signifies to abound and exceed Thirdly although all that is profitable is not sufficient though all that is sufficient is profitable yet that which is profitable ut sic as to perfection seems very sufficient That which helps him to perfection helps him sufficiently quoad hoc as to point of knowledge And if it extends not to sufficencie in the expression the reason may be because other things also are profitable practically And therefore is sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone Because there need not be any controversies necessary to salvation yea rather necessary it is that there should be no Controversies about things necessary to salvation because possibility of error in those things is so dangerous And therefore he supposeth that which is not to be supposed For the man of God may be perfect by Scripture ready furnished to every good work The man of God to wit the Minister So St. Paul of Timothy according to proportion to the Jewish Title but thou man of God flie these things And this we strengthen with St. Crysostom's note upon the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply partaking but with accuratenesse furnished and again before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instead of me thou hast the Scriptures not traditions if you will learn any thing from thence you may so that the Fathers comment imports the Scripture to be sufficient as to learning If any thing else could be pretended as equally profitable then either St. Paul's teaching him but he was to depart and in stead of him he was to have the Scriptures or traditions but he saith not thou hast the word not written but thou hast the Scriptures and that the man of God by the Scripture may be with accuratenesse furnished Therefore untill they can find any thing sufficient without Scripture or any thing necessarily conducing to the sufficiency of Scripture we rest contented with our cause upon account of this text wherein also as usually by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lesse is said more is understood If the Pontificians had such a text for their cause this profitable text would have been made sufficient As for the third answer that St. Paul doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture whence he is most weakly cited to prove that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation We may not say that this is weakly urged For the argument proceeds a fortiori as before If part of the Canon if the old Testament be sufficient then the whole much more And if Traditions were necessary to be added to the old Testament as happily they will say why did God give us the new Testament And to be even with them again when they speak of the Roman Church we might also say this is weakly urged to prove the opinion of the whole Church because they do not speak of the whole Church Again when this is proved it is manifest that part of the whole Canon is lost How then know you the same necessary points not delivered in other parts of Scripture were not delivered in these parts of Scripture which are perished and so are come not to be extant
unto habituall knowledge and yet error may come by want of actuall knowledge either negatively by not applying them or worse by misapplying them they take such opinions first as are of use to them then will draw Scripture to them as is observed but they should apply their opinion to Scripture not Scripture to their opinion Sixthly and lastly he did not consider how near he came to Blasphemy by comming so near to a contradiction of Christ for Christ says to them Ye err not knowing the Scriptures and his consequence says by consequence that they might err though they did know the text because it doth not plainly set down the Resurrection whereby he makes either our Saviour to affirm that they could not know the Scripture which our Saviour plainly supposeth or else that the cause of not erring is not to know the Scriptures as to that point which how he will answer at that great day I know not And so his Syllogism comes to nothing or worse than nothing For if all things had been plainly set down they should not have erred but they erred therefore all things are not plainly set down His major is false If he takes should not have erred ex parte officii it is true but not to his purpose if he takes it ex parte event us it is to his purpose but not true It is not false that they might not have erred but that they could not err it is false A posse ad non posse non non valet Means are not always used or not as they should be We know our duty plainly in many things yet we do not do it This argument is good against him men have erred about the sense of the Trent Definitions as hath been said therefore all things are not plainly set down by the Church but this Argument is not good against us because we do not allow the form or rule of the argumentation His other answer is as uneffectuall that they might err in the knowledge of the Scriptures because in the reading of them they did follow their own private Interpretation which is the most ready way to err specially when men oppose the publick interpretation of the Church Ans And doth this conclude contradictorily to this proposition that they might not err if they attended to Scripture Secondly they might err if they attended to the Church because for ought is yet confirmed the Church may err and therefore the surer way is to attend to Scripture which they confesse is infallible Thirdly if he speaks of opposing the publick interpretation of the whole Church we allow more reverence to the universall Church than to theirs Fourthly is it necessary that every one who cannot submit intuitively to all the definitions of the Church in points of question should oppose the publick interpretation of the whole Church in plain points of faith Fifthly Maledict a glossa quae corrumpit textum This glosse corrupts the text for there is here a limitation of Christs words which else where he accuseth us of without any colour from the words of the Text. The Text disertly represents the cause of erring in this matter of the resurrection to be the not knowing of the Scriptures without any mention of the Church He will not afford it right unlesse we take in also obedience to the interpretation of the Church and his Church too for otherwise he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not then surely invested with the priviledge of infallibility which was not invested upon them as some of their most learned affirm til after the resurrection of Christ And therefore if this were true it were not pertinent Sixthly upon this whole matter it comes to this that it is with them better to believe the Church without the Scripture even in plain points than the Scripture without the Church for otherwise he comes not up to the state of our question And how good this Divinity is let those learned ones of their Church judge who will thus distinguish of the Scripture that it is necessary but not sufficient which also in my opinion is by them intended on the behalf of the Church indeed but not to bring in a new necessity of an infallible Judge in matters of Scripture expressed but to bring in necessity of Traditions in matters of Faith not expressed Num. 13. Your fifth text is 2. Pet. 1.19 We have also a more sure word of Prophecy 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 hearts His exceptions against the validitie of this text are two One that all things necessary to salvation are not there set down when S. Peter spake those words because the Canon was not finished This we have fully taken away before The other is thus how will you prove that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture because one thing is plainly set down Ans To this first take that which was said before about the concluding all points necessary to be plainly set down because that of the Resurrection is so with the reason thereof and the reason is good here also because he seems to confesse that that one point of Jesus's being the Son of God and the Messias might clearly be found in Scripture This me thinks then we have gained that one point is clearly set down in Scripture And this it may be conceived he might grant me because I could draw no consequence from thence against him for so he insists how will you infer ergo all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture We make use of it thus If this point be plainly set down in Scripture then other points also necessarily concerning his being the Messiah must also clearly be set down so then here is a wheel in a wheel yea many inclusively in one and those also clear but verum prius as it seems by his own confession Secondly if I should serve them with a quare impedit why do they not as well admit other points to be clearly set down in Scripture what will they say surely they will say that this point is plainly set down because it is so necessary Well then we reply If there be degrees of necessaries then we may be saved in any degree of necessaries Or if this be set down onely as necessary why not all necessaries For the rule is good A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia If that clearly set down as necessary then all things necessary are clearly set down The same reason is the principle of universality surely with God who doth all things in number weight and measure For although that Axiom Idem quae idem semper facit idem doth not always follow as in finite Agents because they may be defective in their power and there may be want of disposition in the matter they work upon but it cannot be
that the Scripture by it self alone is to decide them Ans This comes not home to the point For first we goe not upon degrees of claritude but upon infallibility Can they tell us how many degrees of claritude will make infallibility Secondly All our Controversies are not so much as all imaginable Controversies there are other Controversies imaginable besides ours Thirdly he supposeth that of us which is not true of us that we affirm the Scripture to decide our Controversies formally which we say not we say again that for things necessary to be believed there is no need of Controversie because they are plainly delivered for other Controversies there is no need as to salvation that they should be decided because they are not necessarily to be believed And also for some of their opinions they are in effect decided namely in a negative manner because they are not mentioned in Scripture and therefore percutit Dei gladius as the Father speaks the sword of God strikes them off Fourthly he is brought to a pinch he would fain have the authority of the Scripture for the infallible decision or the Church yet because the point is not so clear as to amount to our infallibility of their infallibility he puts it upon degrees of claritude But if it comes to degrees of claritude betwixt the Scripture for the Church or the Scripture for it self who shall compare and judge the Church this is the question and it is a partie And persons are partiall the Law not And would not they have men determine for the Church Yes verily and he thinks with good reason then he allows them as is observed by Mr. Chillingworth a judgement of private discretion for the Church out of Scripture but not for the Scripture out of Scripture Fifthly he differs from his own party in this for they think it demonstrable out of Scripture that the Church is with infallible authority to decide all Controversies And how else can the Roman in their Trent Confession be added to the Catholick and Apostolick Church And how did they by their Authority determine that the Latine Bible which came out first by Sextus Quintus afterwards corrected by Clement the eighth though the former by them infallible should be the Judge and Decider of all Controversies So that by the way although the Scripture in the originall be not a Decider of Controversies yet in Latine it may sed te Nos facimus Romana Deam coeloque locamus His texts of more claritude for the Church come in afterwards as he says n. 58 c. To passe by here that which is not materiall Num. 16. and also that which is spoken of here to be managed by him hereafter in other numbers of this ch which might give us an Alarum when they come nearer us He says here he might have added to other points necessary not plainly decided by Scripture that great point whether it be necessary to rebaptize those who are baptized by Hereticks And this we will not here passe by unsaluted because we give reverence to St. Austins testimony produced by him upon the point We therefore answer but with some expostulation why doth this come in here was the latter written before the former There is some mystery in it but we passe it We must answer therefore first that he mistakes the question which he is upon it is not this whether the Scripture doth plainly decide whether such a thing be necessary or not but whether it doth decide plainly that which is necessary Now here he laies it down as a question undecided by Scripture Whether it be necessary to rebaptize those who are baptized by Hereticks To determin a thing which is necessary and to determine whether the thing be necessary are surely two things the former respects the thing as in it self which part is true the latter respects the thing in modo and in order to the end either of obedience or salvation Therefore secondly we distinguish of necessary it hath relation either to duty or to salvation the former is the necessity of the precept the latter of the mean The former if supposed doth not infer the necessity of the knowledge of this point because we may be saved without the knowledge of every thing which is commanded by God by generall Repentance Otherwise no man could be saved for no man living knows every thing which is commanded therefore invincible ignorance must excuse actuall repentance Now the second necessity doth infer a neeessity of knowledge because without the knowledge of necessary means we cannot obtain our end He is therefore to prove it necessary to salvation to know which part of the Contradiction is right to rebaptize or not which he cannot do because the practice on either part is not necessary by necessity of mean And the practice on either part is not necessary by necessity of mean because then either those Churches which differed from St. Cyprian or those that held with him were in extream peril of damnation which I think they will not say Wherefore if either part be necessary to be believed the necessity is not ex vi materiae but ex vi proponendi upon the clearnesse of the proposing it Now that which is necessary to be believed in the latter kind doth not belong to our question for the question is of those things which are to be believed necessarily in order to salvation not necessarily to be believed in order to the proposall but this clear proposall is not necessary because the practice on either part is not necessary to salvation and therefore this is no necessary question And this distinction is sufficient to destroy at least the most of all his instances of this kind And thirdly my Adversary needed not as to himself to have made this a question by reason of the practice of their Church for they account us Hereticks and yet when we come over to them they do not rebaptize us And if they say it is now determined by the Church in the negative we answer it is not yet determined by the Church whether it was necessary to be determined by the Church in order to salvation for then it was necessary to salvation not to be rebaptized and it was necessary to salvation to know it the former puts St. Cyprian in danger for the evil practice the latter puts him in danger for want of necessary knowledge And therefore the former part of St. Austin's testimony hereunto is not appositly produced for the question now is not whether it be openly or evidently read in Scripture because we confesse it is not but the question is of the necessity of it to be known Let then the moment of this discourse be resolved into form thus This is necessary to be known on which part the truth stands this is not known by Scripture therefore somewhat not known by Scripture is necesry to be known we answer first we deny the syllogism because it is not
an Elench a contradictory syllogism for it should conclude something necessary to salvation which is not known in Scripture And if this be put into the major proposition that it is necessary to salvation to be known we utterly deny it untill it be well proved which we think will never be And to that which follows of St. Austin's testimony in the nineteenth ch not the twenty second de Vnit Ecclesiae we consequently can easily make answer even by saying as he that If there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony that he should be consulted in this question we would make no doubt to perform that he should say lest we should seem not to gainsay him so much as to gainsay Christ by whose testimony he was recommended now Christ beareth witnesse to his Church therefore But what then What is this to our purpose For first this informs us what should be done but not upon what necessity whether to salvation or not In things of question we deny not all due respect to the Church but we are upon things necessary to salvation and amongst such this point is out of question no question But secondly those that should be consulted with should be believed in proportion to Scripture should they not yes surely because Christ hath given testimony to his Church in Scripture and if we are to take the testimony of the Church from Scripture then are we to give credence to what is said in analogie to Scripture Now though it be not openly and evidently read in Scripture as he says yet there may be some seeds as it were in Scripture of it whereupon the Conclusion might rise And therefore where Scripture hath the principle we give belief to the Conclusion in respect thereunto Yea the prime and formall reason of believing the Church must come from Scripture by which there in that book St. Austin doth prove the Catholick Church so that if the Church be credible by the Scripture then the Scripture is more credible But thirdly this is said by the Father of the Catholick Church not of a part of it and therefore they cannot conclude from hence to the Roman Church For it being understood of the whole Church as such a part as a part hath no part in it but as it agrees to the whole Neither is it said of the Catholick Church for place then but also the Catholick for time and yet if for the Catholick then we cannot equally draw it to the Catholick for place now for the Catholick morally was more credible then than now And fourthly as he hath excepted against the concluding unto all points from the Scriptures concluding one so we ad hominem deny that he can conclude from the Church unto all points because St. Austin useth it for one point against the Donatists And as he argued from the Catholick against the Donatists a perverse part which would have salvation onely within their circuit in Africa so may we argue from the Catholick Church against the Roman which will have all subject to their Communion or damnation And then also may we limit that which followes Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himselfe who by his testimony commends the Church This respecting things of Discipline against Schisme may be good but what is this to universal and absolute assent in point of faith And it concernes the Catholick Church as before not the Romane or if it did concern the Church of Rome then yet dato non concesso it doth not at all avail to the Church of Rome now As for his distinction of using this Testimony Not for the authority of S. Austin with whom I am so little satisfied but for the convincing reason We answer that this is but a flourish yet wisely made lest he should be as well engaged to answer the testimonies of the Fathers against them I say then that we give more respect to the Fathers than indeed they do when they differ from them and we give as much as the Fathers desire for themselves And why have they themselves then left some practices of the Church as unction with Baptism standing up in prayer betwixt Easter and Whitsontide Infant Communion and others But I shall conclude this Number with S. Austin's Reason mutatis mutandis Whosoever refuseth to follow the Doctrine of Scripture in things necessary resisteth our Saviour himselfe who by his testimony commends and commands to us the Scripture Let him think of this who is an Impugner of the sufficiency of Scripture To pass by his suppositions of his proofe Num. 17. which are already nulled by me he doth here take notice of my charging him with a contradiction in adjecto for saying we should submit to the infallible Judge whatsoever Reasons we have to the contrary But this he doth not ingenuously deliver as it was delivered by me and yet in effect saies nothing to it but that I do ill suppose any solid Reasons grounded in Scripture against such a Judge And this is all he would say to make out my charge against him of a Contradiction in adjecto leaving out those words of mine for it is impossible for us in our judgements to assent to that for which we see reasons of Scripture to the contrary c. May I not say that this was not fair dealing but to let this pass if he can yet prove or any for him such a Judge to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth whose tongue is directed by the same Spirit who directed the Pen of those who writ the Scripture then indeed I should suppose that which could not be but this I deny to be proveable by all the wit of Rome and therefore I still hold my supposition and yet if this could be made good I should yield my supposition yet I could not reverse my charge against him of the contradiction in adjecto which lies not in the supposition of Reasons out of Scripture against such a Judge but in this that we must submit to such a Judge whatsoever Reasons we have out of Scripture to the contrary For if there could be any such Judge proved there could not be Reasons out of Scripture to the contrary And Reason out of Scripture will binde beliefe against any proof It would not onely put a demurr against proofe but prevail against it and if the proofe were out of Scripture then there should be a contradiction in Scripture for there should be reason for such a Judge and reason against it and so the Scripture should not be infallible which they confess Num. 18. But this not right dealing with what I wrote shall not answer for the misusage of Bellarmin that he here accuseth me of because I said If we are by duty to go the way of absolute obedience to the dictates of the Judge we must then if he says vices are vertues say so too as your Cardinall Bellarmin determins This
an infallible assent no more than the first principles which are the object of intelligence And also therefore upon the premisses that which concludes the number might have been forborn Indeed you have brought your whole Religion to as pitifull a case as your Adversaries could wish it These braving words do not hurt a solid cause they are to be returned to the place from whence they came who hath brought Religion to so pitifull a case as the Pontifician who must have religion made accomodable to their pride and covetuousness No case of Religion so pitifull as uncertainty no such uncertainty of Religion as with them For if they ground their Religion upon the determination of Councils wherein onely Bishops have their vote and the Bishop of Rome his confirmation thereof no man can according to their principles be certain whether there be a true Pope or true Bishop as hath been said Moreover we can make use of intrinsecall arguments for the truth of Scripture to be the word of God as well as they We can make use of extrinsecall arguments better for we make use of the authority of the whole Church and do give it in this point as much reverence as is due thereunto But therefore till that which is here said for the setling of our faith be disproved and also till it be proved that we do not make use of these arguments towards our faith of Scripture because we do not pitch our finall resolution in them our ground of faith and of Religion is as good and sound as theirs yea in respect of our own subjective faith more Yea the Romanist might know that he hath been told that Estius doth differ from them upon this point and says that it is not necessary to faith to be begotten by the proposall of the Church in the third B. of senten 23 dist Yea also Stapleton in his Triplication against Whitaker saith p. 103. Ego igitur quicquid in haec causa Spiritui sancto tribuendum est plenissime assignavi c. I have most fully assigned what is to be attributed to the Holy Ghost in this cause asserting these two things both that by faith infused alone or by the testimony of the Holy Spirit alone all faith may be begotten when it pleaseth the Spirit of God to teach any extraordinarily immediately and also although ordinarily a thing is delivered by the testimony and authority of the Church yet no faith doth efficaciously follow without the gift of faith infused by God or without the internall testimony of the Spirit of God And again the same in the next page to the same purpose to clear himself of the suspition of giving no more to the Holy Ghost in this point than those who put the last reason of believing in the testimony of the Church he says disertly Ego enim c. For I have denied and do deny that the last reason of believing is to be put in the testimony of the Church not onely upon that head that that last proposition or resolution I believe the Church to be governed by the Holy Ghost is not had without the inward gift of faith or that he who believeth this believeth this by a gift of faith and not by humane faith or acquisit but especially upon that head that without any testification of the Church or notice of the Church or of the knowledge of that proposition That the Church is governed by the Spirit of God by the onely Magisterie of the Spirit of God one may believe all that is to be believed as the Prophets and Apostles being taught by the Spirit of God alone did believe many things for from hence it follows invincibly against Durandus and others since there can be but one formall reason of our faith and some believe without the testimony of the Church but none can believe without the testimony of the Spirit that the proper and formall reason of faith is not the voice of the Church but must be the testimony the Doctrine the Magistery of the Spirit of God So he And therefore there is lesse between Stapleton and me than betwixt my Adversary and me When all is done therefore we must come to this of the Father Cathedram habet in coelis qui corda docet in terris He hath his Chair in Heaven that teacheth hearts on earth and with the heart man believeth unto salvation Rom 10.10 Num. 21. Therefore in the following number he needed not to take notice of my differing from others of our own Church in this point let them agree with their own men Let Bannes and Stapleton agree with Durand or if they cannot be reconciled let them never hereafter make any difference amongst our selves a prejudice to the cause It is then no more reproach to me to differ from others than for some of them As for the three then whom he says I differ from Mr. Chillingworth Dr. Cowell and Mr. Hooker if they do not agree it it is no infallible argument against me even in the opinion of those three But also as to the first I say and my Adversaries might have known that he held not faith in the high notion of a Divine assent as they do But that a morall assurance was sufficient to it and sufficiently influxive into necessary practice And therefore having this opinion of faith he conceived no such need of an infallible ground hereof but took therefore a common principle for his motive hereof namely universal tradition Secondly if he takes not his grounds from my Adversaries what do they get by him For in his sixty sixth page he says that it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that the Gospell of St. Mathew is the word of God as that all that the Roman Church says is true Yea moreover the same p. 135. doth fairly shew that the Spirit of God may give assurance hereof which he says indeed is not rationall and discursive but supernaturall and infused An assurance it may be to himself but not to any other and again p. 211. that the Doctrine it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God Nec vox hominem sonat And is not then in his opinion the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If then he had raised faith to that height of a Divine assent as my Adversaries do it is very like he would have thought better of this assurance by the Spirit to be more ordinary since universal tradition if it hath any weight must rest in Scripture as it is the tradition of the universal Church which also he contradistinguisheth not onely to the Roman Church for place but to the present universall Church for time because we cannot prove the Church but by Scripture And as for the other two whose judgements he opposeth to my opinion I think they may receive convenient satisfaction by what is said to the former that they did not deny this assurance by the Spirit of God but
that it is not argumentative to others And therefore as to the question about the sufficiency of Scripture Mr. Hooker says that this is to be supposed that the Scriptures are the word of God And notwithstanding he thinks this is not to be proved by it self yet in his first book 34. p. he speaks enough in that he says the Scriptures do sufficiently direct us to salvation And he quotes for it Sotus in the margent And if it sufficiently directs us to salvation then must it be sufficiently clear of it self that it is the word of God for otherwise the principal point unto salvation must be known otherwise And if they think to argue well that we must have all faith from the authority of the Church because we have the faith of the Scriptures from the Authority of the Church we may as well conclude that since we have sufficient direction to salvation from the Scripture we are also sufficiently directed to this main point of faith from the Scripture that the Scripture is the word of God Yea more the Scripture doth give better evidence of it self to be the word of God than the Church can give testimony of it self to be infallible because the Church as such in religion is a non ens without Scripture in the substance of it But to make an end of this exception against me in varying from others this is the common Protestant principle or else Stapleton was decieved who makes account that every one of us ad unum do hold the Scripture to be known per se et sua quadam luce propria In Analsiy principionem Therefore if the question be how we are privately assured ultimately that the Scripture is the word of God we say with Stapleton that we are assured hereof by the testimony of the Spirit if the question be how we prove it to others to be the word of God we can for extrinsecall proof make use with Mr. Chillingworth of universal tradition His exception then against our private assurance of the Scripture to be the word of God in his following words comes to nothing for we need not from what we have said say that the assent of faith is evident as to an object of sense but yet the assent may be more firm and certain The formall object of faith is inevident yet may we more fastly hold to what we believe than to what we see because what we see depends upon our fallible sense but what we believe hath an infallible ground namely the word of God that this is his word For this ultimately must settle our personall faith or else we have no faith of proper name which is infallibly grounded All believe that what God says is true but if to the question whether God says this God cannot bring his own testimony there can be no authentick ground of Religion in subjecto And those therefore who would not have died to bear witness to a thing of sense have died to bear testimony to the Christian Religion and also have died for it assuredly ex vi habitus by the power of the habit of faith not ex vi traditionis by the credibility of the Church And as to that which he takes â—â—â—tice of that I acknowledge a greater necessity of such a Church to declare by infallible authority which books be the true word of God which not than to declare any other point I answer that it is not very ingenuously taken here by him what I said for I spake by way of supposition that it would not follow if the Church were infallible as to propose or tax and consign Canonical books as Stapleton speaks yet that we had need of the Church infallibly to propose every other point of faith He it seems took positively what was spoken upon supposition Every thing which is given in discourse is not granted to him but this he refers to num 43. For the ending then of this Paragraph and sufficiently for the Controversie upon the whole matter it remains that the Scripture must be credible for it self or else the Church Not the Church that must be known by the Scriptures as before therefore those texts by which the Church is proved in the truth and infallibility must be worthy to be believed for themselves or not if so then why not other parts of Scripture and so we have our purpose if not then are we in a circle and must beg the question and never be satisfied Num. 22. Here another argument is drawn against me from the effect negatively which in the kind of it doth not conclude A non esse ad non posse non valet And we may as well argue that some have this way attained faith therefore this is the way however the possibility proceeds from the effect to 〈◊〉 but it doth not proceed against a possibility from the deniall of it to some Because Pighius and Hermannus have not found assurance this way therefore this is not the way for finall assurance is inconsequent Secondly the cause of non-assurance thus doth not arise from the defect in Scripture which Stapleton says and some others is true and holy and authentick but God doth not give by his Spirit faith to all All men have not faith as the Apostle as commonly we expound it and though they are said to believe in the sense of the Church because they professe the Christian Religion yet by an internall act of faith many not Thirdly neither are we bound to maintain this proposition of theirs Facienti quod in se est datur gratia ex congruo and therefore if upon the use of means they have not this Divine faith infused it is no prejudice to our cause for not onely gifts are gratiae gratis datae but also the gratiae gratum facientes are also freely given and therefore is their distinction by the way faultie And therefore if there be many millions which is yet more than he could know who can truly and sincerely protest before God and take it upon their salvation that they are wholly unable by the reading these books to come to an infallible assurance that this is Gods word This inferrs nothing of moment against us because although we have not ordinarily the effect without the means yet because we use the meanes therefore necessarily we shall have the effect doth not follow if the graces of God be free Yea fourthly those millions he means are of their Church we may suppose and they we may think are instructed to find no resolution but in their own way by the proposall of the Church So that as St. Paul says Rom. 10.3 of the Jews that they going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God so also may we say of these that they going about to establish the authority of the Church in this point have not submitted themselves to the authority of God Yea fifthly and lastly to be even
make any answer to the reason whereof I have given before And as to his imagination that if the Fathers had perswaded the Heathens to believe the Scripture by its own light they would have scoffed at them we have answered before that we use not such an argument to perswade others but this we have for our private assurance as we cannot assent to Christian Doctrine but by the Spirit for no man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the Spirit so no man can give a Divine assent to the books of Scripture but by the Spirit as Stapleton hath affirmed therefore though we cannot argue to others the reception of these books as Canonical by that inward testimony of the Spirit which we cannot make known to others infallibly yet surely we may be able to prove to the Pontificians at least that there is such a testimony of the Spirit of God in thesi they will not argue from the deniall of it in Hypothesi to private Christians to the deniall of it in universali for they say that the Church which is to commend these books to private men if they think they are to be commended to them is assured that they are books Divine and Canonical by the testimony of the Spirit so that upon the point we agree for the kind of assurance and they come to us for the last assurance onely they will have us to have this assurance mediately by the Church So the whole ratio and account of a Papist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 delivered by Stapleton Dei verbum per os Ecclesiae intelligimus both the faith of the Scripture and faith out of the Scripture we must have it from the Church And yet the Church Representative must have it severally from the Spirit immediately too and so there is lesse difference And yet there was no Council or Pope surely for the first three hundred years in which time notwithstanding men did believe the Scriptures to be the word of God and then no difference betwixt them and us in the perswasion of Canonical Scripture Secondly Dato non concesso that there had been nothing said by the Fathers touching this point which yet as before is not so yet cannot we argue from them negatively as we doe from Scripture because even the chief of their Doctors will say that the Scripture is a rule of faith and the principal one too some but so is not the consent of the Fathers with the Papists in communi for they will differ from them as they did in the Trent Council and specially with my Adversary who hath before contradistinguished the Fathers to the authority of the Church So then as we cannot solidly reason from their use of arguing from the Church that there is no better assurance absolutely so neither could we from the silence of the testimony of the Spirit argue that we must only depend upon the Church But thirdly he might have observed in St. Austin the reason why they urged the authority of the Church for the confirmation of Scripture in lib. de utilitate credendi cap. 5. Scripturae populariter accusari possunt non possunt populariter defendi namely otherwise than by the Church yet he also doth suffragate for us in his book against the Epistle of the Manich. Non jam hominibus sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante atque illuminante not men now but God himself confirming and inlightning our mind within And for triumph Canisius and Hosius besides Stapleton of the Romanists are brought in with their testimonies to the same purpose that we have a greater testimony of the Scriptures than the Church Dr. Whit. De Eccles p. 254. namely that of the Spirit of God As for that which follows Really I think if the Doctors of the Primitive Church had told the Heathens c. to the end of the Paragraph how little doth it weigh with us Really we may think that they think any thing will serve to make up weight We can use to such the same argument with the Fathers without any derogation to our cause And secondly they did not plead the Church upon the Roman account and therefore if they will have all they have no share But to serve them in kind Did the Doctors of the primitive Church tell the Heathens of our ordinary Pastor which should be the Plenipotentiarie of the whole Church Did they tell them of Transubstantiation And had they told them that these things were as credible by the authority of the Church as by a light as evident as the Sun the Heathens surely would have scoffed at them for saying them to be so visible And again he argues from the visibility to the actuall sight not considering what is requisit in the subject namely facultie and will This number is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 25. the argument is this there are as many raies observable in the book of Toby or Judith as in so many chapters of the book of Numbers Ans Would any one have expected so bold an assertion But then why were these accounted amongst the rest Deuterocanonical why were they not accounted by Jerom by Eusebius by Cyril of Jerusalem as before equal to the books Canonical as to confirmation of faith Why rejected by so many learned men as Doctor White in his Defence of the true way doth cite p. 32 Well And how came the first Christian to distinguish them Not by the authority of the Church then by some difference in the books by the Divine illumination For secondly the Church hath not as to the Canonicallnesse of books vim operativam but vim declarativam as at most even according to their greatest Doctors and therefore this they do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ex officio then either they were not declared in the primitive times or were declared by some discrimination from the books if they were not declared there is no necessity now neither that they should be declared if they were declared upon reason of the difference then there are not such raies in the books Apocryphall Thirdly if these books were allways to be received as Canonicall then the Church in the Primitive times erred in not receiving them If they be not to be received as Canonicall as they were not received so then the Roman Church erreth in the receiving them for such And this Dilemma is destructive of their infallibility Num. 26. A sixth argument is drawn from a possibility of some omission of some words in Scripture as the little word not to an impossibility of my discerning this omission only by the reading of Scripture Ans The Scripture is either corrupted or not If the former how can we trust the Church of Rome which pretends it self the Keeper if not the argument is void and Bellarmin holds the latter Secondly Conditio impossibilis facit negativam if it were false it could not be the word of God therefore since we both acknowledge it to
be the word of God we cannot ut sic suppose such an omission Thirdly if there were a not left out how should the Church have power to put it in For then the Church would have power to contradict the old reading and so to make Scripture if the Church had not power then it would be as uncertain as we Fourthly if there were a not left out in things substantiall and necessary it would likely make a contradiction to other texts where the same matter is delivered for it would be very hard to find ony point necessary to be one of those which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now since we both conclude no Contradiction in Scripture for then it would not be true and infallible we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conclude that there is no such omission Fifthly if we may he perswaded by the Spirit of God that the Scripture is the word of God then consequently we are assured that there is not such an omission but verum prius ergo posterius Here we have a seventh argument Num. 27. Luther who had the Spirit as well as I if not in a larger measure contradicts me in the Canonicallnesse of the Epistle of St. James and in ths book of the Revelation therefore this ground of believing Canonicall books is fallible since in a Contradiction one part must be false And thus he thought to pay me in kind for my disputing the error of Councils by a Contradiction which he says If you could prove you should prove that Councils are fallible Ans As for the Metaphysicall Law in Contradictions that one part must be false if we hold any thing certainly true we differ not And concerning the proof of Councils to be fallible by ones contradicting another it comes in here but collaterally this is not sedes materiae and therefore as he brings it in we may passe it with a light foot In point of fact they will confesse they may as well contradict one another as err and therefore we will not now insist upon the contradiction of the Council of Chalcedon and the second of Nice about the Epistle of Ibas But did not the Council of Francford contradict the second Council of Nice in point of worship of Images But also to give them exemplum utile the Council of Laodicea rejected the Apocryphal books as not Canonical the Council of Trent receives them for such Ses 4. So one contradicts another And if it be said that the Council of Laodicea was not Generall we answer that it was as Generall as the Council of Carthage which he urgeth below for he book of Maccabees for this was but provinciall by Carranza's confession But then secondly we say though it was but provinciall yet was it established by the sixth Generall Council as Carranza also confesseth and then consequently the sixth Generall Council and the Council of Trent do contradict And now as to the contradiction betwixt Luther and me upon the case I say first that the argument is not yet valid to his purpose the objects have themselves equally to all but all have themselves not equally to objects and yet though Luther had a greater measure of the Spirit than I it doth not follow neverthelesse that this book could not be seen to be Divine by the Divine illumination no more than it doth follow that because St. Peter had a greater measure of the grace of God's Spirit he could not deny his Master As a larger measure of grace doth not exclude all possibility of sin so neither doth a larger measure of the Spirit exclude all possibility of error Secondly was not the Church of Christ as quick-sighted by the help of the Spirit before the Council of Carthage as then And yet it seems by my Adversary that the Church did not clearly propose the book of Maccabees to be Canonicall before that time and therefore non-acknowledgement in some doth not prove against possibility of certain knowledge And thus if Luther's exceptions against those books were always continued in the height of termes which yet is denied he gaines nothing against us since also Thirdly we return the Adversary his own argument if the determinations of the Church be so clear how doe they contradict one another Next follows the instance he puts of those two prime Doctors of the Church St. Jerom and St. Austin about the book of Maccabees St. Austin as he would have us think held it for Canonicall St. Jerom not So then here is Father against Father and therefore consent of Fathers in all points is scarce a possible argument But the cause he says of this difference was not our ground this we have spoken to but because it was not clearly proposed in St. Jerom's time by the Church But the third Council of Carthage in which St Austin was present declared these books to be God's word and so St. Austin held these books infallibly to be God's word c. Ans Not to passe it that St. Austin might be more likely to swallow the account of these books because he had not skill in the Hebrew Canon as the Greek he learned late And not to passe it that my Adversary names not the place where St. Austin held these books to be God's word and infallibly too it may be he held them so as the book of Wisedom of which before but my Adversary speaks one word here ingenuously that the third Council of Carthage did but declare well and the Council of Laodicea did before declare the contrary This was before St. Jerom's time being celebrated in the year 364. as Carranza reckons and the reason then why St. Jerom refused that book was not because he had not seen this Council of Carthage as my Adversary says but because he had read the Canons of the Council of Laodicea for this was of equall authority to that of Carthage being both provinciall and both confirmed by the sixth Generall Council as the former Author observes and if so then by the way the same Generall Council was guilty of a Contradiction as establishing the Canons of those Councils which in this point about the books of the Maccabees are repugnant one to other Again if the authority of the Council of Carthage did bind St. Austin who subscribed it as to the acknowledgement of these books for Canonicall then the twenty sixth Canon of the same Council doth equally bind That the Bishop of the first sea should not be called the Prince of the Priests or the supreme Priest or any such thing but onely the Bishop of the first sea Therefore let the Roman either not urge this Council against us or receive it against himself Nay lastly we can better answer the Canon against us than Carranza answers the Canon against Rome's Supremacy For the reason which my Adversary gives out of the Canon for reception of those books doth not oblige to receive them equally to Canonical books namely because we have received from our Fathers that
they were read in the Church The strength of this reasoning is resolved into this proposition Whatsoever is read in the Church is to be taken for Canonical and this proposition is false by the practice of the Church of England by St. Jerom's distinction yea also by the Canon it self for it sayes Liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur Itmay be lawfull also to read the passions of the Martyrs when their anniversary days are celebrated And also if that reason did bind the Fathers in the Council of Carthage to establish them as Canonical why did it not as well bind St. Jerom in whose time the books also were read if they were universally read And if the Church of God was sufficiently instructed in point of faith without them till St. Austin's time which was above four hundred years after Christ as Bellarmin confesseth why may not the Church be well enough without them still For either there must be nothing in them materiall or expositionall which is simply necessary for Gods Church or else the Church of God for the purest and best times must be unprovided thereof as Canonically to ground faith If they confesse the former we have what we would if the latter besides other consequences they destroy the rule of faith to Councils themselves or as some now will say by succession of tradition Therefore by this instance he gets nothing it is neither proof nor disproof Num. 28. Here he triumphs before the victory he doth here put a new face upon an old argument If you say that we must have a speciall Spirit that is new eyes to see it then you who have this Spirit are all Prophets discovering by private Revelation made to your selves that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover This argument prophylactical preserves them little A speciall Spirit is considerable two ways either in ordine ad subjectum or in ordine ad objectum it may be speciall in the first sense and not in the latter Now it is the speciall Spirit in the latter sense which makes the Prophet when some new thing is revealed thus we deny any speciall Spirit which rather belongs to them who will not have all things for necessary faith and manners revealed in Scripture that so they may find in the Church by tradition the points of their Religion which they cannot find in Scripture as is noted But also the speciall faith in the first sense may be subdistinguished it is considerable either as oppositly to those who have not faith or respectively to those who have faith in the first way we say it is speciall for all men have not faith as the Apostle speaks 2 Thes 3.2 but if it be taken respectively to those who have faith we say it is not speciall but common for there is no true dogmaticall faith but such as Stapleton and their Schoolmen confesse Yea this argument may be returned to them too if they say they are inlightned by the Spirit to see all truth infallibly to be delivered by the Church they have the new eyes and they are all Prophets discerning by private revelation made to them selves that which all mankind besides could not discover So then the other old argument which here he incrustates that if the evidence of Scripture to be the word of God were such as of a prime principle as this It is impossible that any thing should be and not be in the self same circumstances then all should assent to it as they do to this principle is again slighted for first every one hath not that supernaturall light or eye to see the truth of that first principle that the Scripture is the word of God which we have said before but then secondly the prime principle in Metaphysicks are not so clear as to exclude all necessity of means of knowledge of them though they do naturally perswade assent so there are means of knowing the Scripture which do not prejudice their autopisty through the Spirit of God and therefore there may be a failing of belief Yea thirdly the Spirit bloweth where it listeth John 3.8 Yea fourthly many truths are assented to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he said which are not prophorically acknowledged And yet some of their own men have confessed this truth being overcome by the soveraignty of it Fifthly it is retorted if the authority of the Church were the prime principle for the evidence of faith then all would assent to it but all doe not assent to it therefore by his own argument the Church's authority is not the prime principle But the assistance of the Spirit he then pleads a fortiori for the Church the Church having far more proof of her assistance than every private Protestant Ans First we have no to need be put upon the compare with the Church If the Church have infallible assistance herein yet private Christians may have it too and that would be sufficient for us in this point But secondly the Church is no otherwise infallibly certain hereof than we for this is assured to every one that votes it in the Council the same way if indeed they doe give their suffrage upon a ground infallible Thirdly the private Christian is assured hereof by the Spirit for himself therefore the Council needs not be infallible herein as to teach it because we are thus taught of God If the compare were thus if the private Christian were thus assisted to teach others much more the Council this would be somewhat like but the private Christian doth not undertake this and yet doth it not follow that this infallibility doth attend the Council which doth undertake to teach others because there is use of its teaching without infallibility and no need of its teaching infallibly this point which we are infallibly perswaded of by the Spirit of God And fourthly we deny that there is any points of as much consequence wherein the Church should be assisted with infallibility as this that the Scripture is the word of God because if we be assured of this we need not depend upon any infallibility in the Church for other points since all things necessary are with sufficient plainnesse set down in the Scripture Fifthly as before the Christians were assured hereof before Pope or Council in which he placeth the authority infallible of the Church And again if the universall Church had this priviledge they speak of they are to prove themselves to be first a true part and then also that the part hath the property of the whole and when they have done these we can say as much yea more for our own Church And lastly they are yet to shew their clearer proofs of assistance to the Church than a private Christian hath for the hardest of all points namely that the Scripture is the word of God which indeed if it be compared with the points of Controversie in Divinity is not the hardest point
know that de officio this is the way of constituting and so of distinguishing the Church and de facto this is the way that S. Austin and also some of their owne Divines do prove the Church by yea this is the way which my Adversaries must take and do And thirdly neither do we say that we believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit but to those who do professe the beliefe of the Scripture to be the word of God And therefore are we even with them in this kinde for as they deale with Heathens as to the proofe of Scripture by the Church so do we also as the Fathers were wont by the Church universal And I can use the authority of the Church as an inducement unto the Heathen although the Pontificians cannot use the authority of the Chnrch to me as the determinative of faith So then if they can prove the authority of the Church infallibly to be infallible without dependence upon the Scripture they shall indeed speak to the purpose Otherwise they are shut up in a circle out of which they can never move their foot The thirty second number hath in it much and little longae Num. 32. Ambages sed summa sequor fastigia rerum The intendment of it is to fix the wheel by assuring the Church to be infallible without running to the Scripture In the beginning of it it would prove their faith good because they believed those who delivered it had Commission from God But this satisfieth not because the question rebounds upon them why they believed that those who delivered it had Commission from God If they say they had assurance thereof by the Spirit then they come to our kind of assurance Therefore they determine this belief upon two motives one comming from the Doctrine in order to God change of life the other from God in order to the Doctrine in miracles and there he amplifies in two leaves which might have been dispatched in three words Indeed the first he says not much of for it is no concluding argument For first it doth not distinguish Doctrines for thus the Jew the Arrian the Socinian the Sectary might prove his Doctrine infallible Secondly the good life if it were a result of Doctrine yet not from the points of difference but the generall fundamentalls of Christian faith wherein the Controversies lie not Yea thirdly if this new life did proceed by way of emanation or absolute connexion from the points of difference we might join issue with them and have the better Yea fourthly Judas had a right Commission and yet no good life Yea fifthly the manners are rather to be proved good by the practicall Doctrine than speculative Doctrine if any Doctrine ultimately be such proved good by manners Therefore good life is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Divine Doctrine nor yet of a Divine Commission Yea sixthly Dato non concesso that we mighr know the Church and Doctrine of it to be infallible by good life yet this is not conformable to their postulate that God should teach us all verity by the mouth of the Church as Stapleton speaks Then as to the other motive of faith in the true Church namely miracles we can say severall things first in thesi miracles are no certain distinctive of a Divine Commission because the man of sin may deceive by lying wonders as St. Paul speaks 2 Thes 2.9 And also Moses Deut. 13.1 2. Then this is no infallible motive for the believing of a Commission from God because we may be deceived in it And although upon supposition of a true miracle we might conclude a Commission from God yet this is not the way infallible because we may be deceived in the truth of the miracle whether it be such or not since the miracle cannot fidem facere de se as the testimony of the Spirit can Secondly the gift of miracles was a gift common to those who were not all Prophets as to penning of the Scripture and also not common for ought we know to some who did as St. Mark and S. Luke therefore this is not sufficient to resolve our faith in their Commission because not given Omni nor soli for whatsoever doth distinguish must have it self per modum differentiae Thirdly therefore since we must have faith to believe the miracles to be true we ask how we come to this faith if by the operation of the Spirit then faith ultimately is fixed upon our foundation namely the testimony of the Spirit by which we may as well be assured that the Scripture is the true word of God as that miracles are true Fourthly the gift of miracles was temporary and accomodated for that season of the Church And therefore cannot we prove by miracles new Doctrines as Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Communion in one kinde Transubstantiation Supremacy of the Roman Bishop therefore if miracles did infallibly ascertain the divine Commission of the Prophets and Apostles to speak and write yet are not we satisfied by them in the question of new Doctrines which the Scripture gives us no account of but therefore he comes to Oral tradition For as for his reasoning in form thus in hypothesi The Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles therefore the Doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For first not to carp at the form of his syllogism we say to the proposition that if they preached the Doctrine of the Roman Church as differently from the whole Church they preached what they ought not to preach and so the minor proposition is false If they did preach the same doctrine which the whole Church received in Scripture from the Apostles then we grant the minor and the conclusion too as much as doctrine can be confirmed by miracles but we distinguish of the time when the miracles were wrought namely in the time of the Apostles and by them For as for miracles done by S. Austin to confirm the same faith which we abolished in our reformation we say that Bede and Gregory and Brierly whom he quotes for testimony hereof are not to us surely of sufficient authority in their own cause Nay secondly they had best not add the testimony of the learned Magdeburgians lest they be ashamed to slight them in other matters but also chiefly upon this consideration because if the points of difference were confirmed by many miracles which he refers us to Brierly in his Index for then by the Argument before those points of difference were new for as miracles have themselves to faith so new miracles to new faith And if it was a new faith then it was not received by oral tradition from the Apostles successively and then they are undone Therefore let them speak no more to us of the miracles of S. Austin the Monk who shewed nothing so much wonderful as his pride in
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
for Iudith Then one of the Councils must erre either that which established Iudith and not the rest or that which established Iudith and the rest namely that of Carthage wihch my Adversary saies S. Ierome had not seen One thought them not fit to be declared Canonical another thought them to be fit And is not this a contradiction of Council to Council Again Bellarmine saies that S. Ierome did afterwards receive the Book of Iudith Now I desire to know how much time that after doth suppose for If S. Ierome had received it presently we should have heard of it if much time after as it might be by the words then the Authority of the Church seemed not to S. Ierome so intuitively to oblige as the Antagonists suppose Had he thought the Church infallible would he have stuck at it Do not the Romanists know the rule in Tacitus Qui de liberant desciverunt They which deliberate have already revolted What he would have me note by the way that the Fathers of the Council of Carthage did acknowledge the Maccabees for true Scripture it is no difficult matter to give account to For first he goes upon a false Principle that if those Fathers were of our Religion then we must make them agree with us in this prime Principle upon which we receive all Scripture as Gods infallible Word This is not so for my living Adversaries may know that one who hath defended our Religion hath been quoted to me as differing from me in this point and that is Mr. Chillingworth Though all that are of this opinion are like to be of our Religion yet all of our Religion it seems are not of this opinion For indeed the Protestant Religion supposeth the Scripture to be the Word of God as a common Principle and therefore also there should not have been any contestation about this point if our Adversaries had not been resolved to question all Religion which is not properly theirs Secondly Therefore they might have received Scripture upon the Authority of Universal Tradition which also abstracts from the Roman Impropriation Thirdly Since they had not Universal Tradition for those Apochryphal Bookes as it seems by S. Ierom we cannot neither upon that account be ingaged to receive them as Canonical Fourthly Since they did not receive them by Universal Tradition as appears also by Cyril of Ierusalem as before and since they are not to be discerned by their own light as my Adversaries will confess nor by the conditions of the matter what reason shall we have to receive them For if they say the Council was assisted by the Holy Ghost we ask what was it assisted as a Council or as such a Council if as a Council why had not the other the same Assistance if as such a Council how shall we discern which Council the Holy Ghost will assist unto infallibility Et solos credit habendos Esse Deos quos ipse colit N. 45. In this he is pleased to move again the same stone which will in the end return upon himself again For how came one Council to acknowledge the Maccabees and another not were not the former Council as well irradiated as the latter Yes they were more in all account but of my Adversary who is not in so good a capacity to grant that the Argument from Authority of the Church graduates its strength by the greater nearness to the Primitive For he holds an equal assistance of the Spirit to the Church at all times But the old saying was Quò antiquius eò melius And the rule is good Ut se habet simpliciter ad simpliciter ita magis ad magis maximè ad maximè if it be good as ancient then the more ancient the more good And this at other times is the advantage which the Romanists would take in claiming the credit of the Original Church to them And besides he might have considered that he had no reason to bring this about again because the reason of their reception as was said before is expressed to depend upon the custome of their being read in the Church which doth not make them or declare them to be Canonical unles in S. Ieroms distinction for the edifying of the people in manners not for confirmation of faith Well then if one Council might see what another did not without prejudice to the object then S. Ierome might not see or Luther what S. Austin did without prejudice to the credibility of Scripture Yea it is not yet proved that S. Austin accounted the Book of Maccabees as Canonical as other Books But this is actum agere And again he repeats what he hath not done Let them not trouble us for they have lost their strength And yet again S. Matthews Gospel N. 46. He had better have solidly proved which he sleightly puts off the proof of in the end of the last section that they do not prove the infallibility of the Church first by Scripture I assure them this is a Fort-royal and therefore this should be made good at all hands Well but let us see his Argument in the face about S. Matthews Gospel which he saies he hath forced a passage to Surely he had no such reason to rally and obtrude this Argument again and to be so confident of it as to say boldly that it cannot possibly by our Principles ever come to be believed with an infallible assent to be Gods true uncorrupted word Why not Nay here is all of this no proof We looked for a Spear like a Weavers Beam or else some new Sword whereby the Philistin thought to have slain David but here is none yet Yea Sâ—apleton shall sufficiently answer him with a contradiction as before who saies It is not absolutely necessary to Faith that it should be produced by the Authority of the Church but it may be caused immediately by the Spirit of God So then it is possible by our Principles to believe it with an infallible assent to be the Word of God And before a Church was formed how did the material Members believe any point of Faith then it is possible But then he slides to another way as he thought of urging hiâ— Argument and that is the Marcionites the Cerdonists and the Manichaeans do deny and others may come to deny the Gospel of S. Matthew to be Gods true Word Yea but this is another question It is one thing to believe it to be Gods Word and another to prove it to him that denies it to be Gods Word Now the question in hand is how we believe it to be Gods Word And therefore we say as to such we deal with them as we deal with others who deny any part of Scripture not by the Authority of the Roman Church and therefore the Romanists get nothing by this Argument but by Universal Tradition as a common Argument which rather makes a Scholastical Faith than a Faith Divine of proper name So that also he cannot reasonably
good Scripture for none give the terme and afterwards tâ—e signification but the Latin but the name Manna they do not name And whether that be the signification of Manna deserves a criticism Some think that it may come from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it should signifie a portion neither is Bethel interpreted upon the place Gen. 35.15 So then upon the whole matter that which he confidently saies being not so in his own Instances and more my conjecture is yet true and good unless they can make the Latine Translation to be as Catholique Scripture as they would have the Pope to be universal Bishop And surely if a Translator of Scripture doth translate words of Scripture where the words are not interpreted in Scripture he is not a Translator of Scripture quoad hoc formally but materially of that which is Scripture And this is not to render Scripture so much as to make it And moreover they may know this to be the usage of the Evangelists besides which are acknowledged to have written originally in Greek to give the Interpretation of the Hebrew or Syriack words My conjecture then is well recovered of its weakness But then he falls upon me for giving a contradiction to S. Ierom. Though he saith he did see a copie of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes you reject him though all the Fathers Writings extant stand on his side Answ A conjecture of a possibility of the contrary makes no such contradiction which stands betwixt affirmation and negation categorically 2. S. Ierom then hath rather contradicted them if a conjecture be sufficient to a contradiction For can we conceive that there is not room enough for a conjecture that either that Copie which S. Ierom had use of or that which he described which may be as certain as some other may now be extant in the world which contradicts my Adversary 3. If there were an Hebrew Copie it is more than a conjecture it is more than probable that he who translated it into Greek did exactly compare it with the Hebrew whose faithfulness in those times we might better trust than some Romans now And also they know that the Pope may be deceived in point of fact Neither did all the Fathers I suppose see the Hebrew Copie And it would have been enough that none of the Fathers are against it but it is a greater adventure to say all the Fathers stand on that side And also they may know what Father did profess that he did see the remainers of those cells in which the Seventy did translate the Old Testament and who contemns that testimony I think I bear as much respect to the Fathers as some of the Romanists do or more but yet if I should hold with the Romans against the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome was the universal Bishop I should not be blamed for contradicting the Fathers But to his Argument This Copie translateth ergo it is a translation Answ Tâ—e Antecedent begs the question whether it doth translate or not Whatsoever doth interpret doth not translate And therefore here is an Argument for me It doth not translate ergo it is not a Translation And it doth not translate for then the Interpretation must be in the Hebrew which is denied to have been the use of the Hebrews as before especially in the same case where the name is given in the same letters which signifie the interpretation Therefore the Latine doth not translate when it giveth the Interpretation as in the former examples And the other Evangelists are not Translators when they interpret Hebrew or Syriack words So his Argument is for me And so my cause is not lost as to this point since also S. Austin professed in that of his against the Epistle of the Manichean that he would hear Reason against Antiquity at least surely he might do so in matter of fact Your third shift is in place of giving answer to make an objection asking why our Latine Translation was made authentique if the Church had made the Greek authentique Answ Shall I say that my Adversary doth not seem here to know well what shift to make since he carps at my answering by way of question But then they should be better advised than to make such Arguments as they will not be willing to answer an intergatory about in the same matter But he saies passing by some other words which seem too hot for him I know of no body who told you that the Greek Translation was made authentique by the Church I return upon him Was the Greek Translation made authentique or not He is not willing to say it was nor it was not But I press them Was it or was it not If it was not then their Translation was not of authentique Scripture and so again they do not translate but make Scripture If it was made authentique by the Church then what need of two authentique Translations Again if it were not made authentique by the Church then the Church could be without the authentique Gospel of Saint Matthew and yet have enough for salvation and therefore can we be as well without Traditions of the Church because I presume they profess so much reverence to the Gospel of S. Matthew that they will not say that Traditions are more necessary than the Gospel of S. Matthew And if it were made authentique absolutely by the Church we can better believe it by the vertue of Universal Tradition than they can believe their Latine by the authority of the Roman Church And if it be necessary as it is that Translations as such should agree with Originals and the question be which is the Original or where the Original is to be found they are in as great difficulty as we for then they have no certainty of an Original as to this Gospel to make use of for their Translation And if their Latine as to this was a Translation of a Translation we have the better cause in this because we trust rather to the first Translation And if some part of the Church made use of the Septuagints Translation in stead of the Hebrew and the Pen-men of the New Testament made so much use of it also as is confessed by learned men then may we rather make use of the Gospel of Saint Matthew in Greek than they in Latine Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the harmony with other Gospels Ans A great deal he saies to this which I might spare the refutation of upon these reasons First because I compare the harmony of this Gospel to the other Gospels with the credit of the Church therefore do I not make this to be an Argument absolute 2. Because I spoke of the harmony betwixt this and other Gospels and not betwixt this Gospel and other parts of scripture and therefore he playes the Sophister the discourse is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas then he does deny my Argument by compare of it with
other Gospels he does not contradict me in my conclusion which was comparative to the credit of the Church And where he compares the harmonie of this Cospel with other parts of Scripture he doth not conclude contradictorily to me who onely instituted the compare of it with other Gospels It is necessary therfore to set down my words which were these Again the harmony of it with other Gospels hath more in it to perswade faith than the credit of the Church So that all his disputation as to this is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench because it comes not up to a contradiction to my terms And besides if the difficulties about the agreement were so great their infallibility pretended should have cleared them Either we might have saving health notwithstanding those breaches or else the plaister was defective or else there is want of care in the Physitian Or it may be as he said Plus periculi a medico quaâ— a morbo but let them take my own termes in their ordinary sence and then his assaults will lose their force before they come home to the point For what if one who intended a supposititious Gospel would take care not to contradict the others Is not therefore the harmonie of this Gospel with others a better perswasive than the credit of the Church For the Argument from the Church is more extrinsical and such Arguments are in kind less rational And if they say the Church hath an infallible assistance it beggs the question And what infringement of the harmony is it if there be many things related by St. Matthew and not related at all by many others For so they would not find an harmony of the other Gospels and this according to Mr. Cressy would make this Gospel more credible because more things are here expressed and it may be some material But surely to relate circumstances and not to relate circumstances namely the same makes no contradiction in diverse subjects if one did say these circumstances were and another did say these circumstances were not this would contradict but not to say is not to say not For not to say is negative ex parte actus but to say not is negative ex parte objecti which makes the contradiction in diverse subjects Again what if there seem to be any variety betwixt the Gospel of St. Matthew and other parts of Scripture he should have said and other Gospels if he would have spoken ad idem in the History of the generations must Faustus the Manichaean be gratified in honour to the Roman Church If there be any such variety the Roman will have the worst of it for his foundation lies principally in that Gospel And this cannot be salved by the Church because the Church is in question But he will not spare the Gospel of St. Matthew as if the Roman Church needed it not and therefore he tells us of a disagreement in the first chap. of St. Matthew's Gospel with the 2. b. of the Kings the 8th ch about Ioram's begetting Ozias Ioram begat Ozias c. Well if the Roman calls children Nephews more reasonably may the Hebrews call real Nephews children which are as minor sons as he said And so Ioram might be said to begâ—t Ozias who was his Abnepos Or will not Salmerons conceit please them that this was so ordered in an allegory to typifie that as 3 Kings are excluded in the History so those that deny the doctrine of the Trinity and deprive themselves of the three Theological vertues do deserve to be excluded salvation But since it seems it was the spirit of Gods purpose to put the account in tessarodecades it was necessary that in one of them three should be left out And convenient it was that the omission should be in the second that so that curse upon Ahabs family should be here exemplified those three Kings being of his posterity somewhat as Dan in the seventh of the Revel is not numbred because that Tribe did go away from God in Idolatry and did mingle with the Gentiles as is observed Another difficultie he urgeth about the number of the Generations wherein one seems to be wanting you shall finde them to be only fortie one which by the account of thrice fourteen Generations should make fortie two Ans Our question is about the harmonie of the Gospel in the point of doctrine cheifly this concerns historie of fact 2. We have no reason to thinke that because we cannot comprehend all the mysteries in scripture and the waies of the jewish acount there should be any falsitie herein Tertullians ' rule is good Cedat Curiositas fidei 3. Stapulensis it seems said that in old copies it is found thus Iosias genuit Ioaechim Ioaechim genuit Iechoniam and these two are comprehended under one name Since Iechonias is called Iehoiachin 4º Regum ch 24 ver 6. whose father Iehoiachin was the father and the sonne are confounded by the similitude of the names in the greek as some note Another difficultie he urgeth about the 27 of St. Matthew ver 9. Then was fulfilled that which was said by the prophet Ieremie whereas the Prophet Ieremie hath no such matter in him What harmonie appeareth here indeed in the Prophet Zechary there is in substance what St. Matthew said Ans An errour of the scribe cannot discanonize the book in a point of circumstance if it were so as it might be if the Gospel was first written in Hebrew for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might easily be read for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Ier in short and for Ieremie for by the hand namely of the Prophet which is the usuall form of expression in this kind And also the Syriack expresseth it in the same manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the hand of the Prophet Or it may be 2. As some note they were wont to put severall books together and to name all by the first So Ieremie being first all were reckoned by him and so that which is said by Zecharie is attributed to Ieremie too being the first And so we know that in the old Testament books are called by the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 3. However this agrees with the Scripture in generall though not particularly in termes with Ieremie His other exceptions are about the difference of St. Peter's denying his master which compared with other Evangelists seemes to differ in very many Circumstances and then also in the last chap. He saies there are some Circumstances about the resurrection which St. Matthew differs from the rest in Ans These are spoken by him in generall and Generalia non agunt as it is said neither do they make an action And then 2. Somewhat may be diverse which is not adverse And what one sayes another doth not denie If another omission did make a contradiction to what one affirmes then if St. Ierom had called the Bishop of Rome the universall Bishop which yet he doth not then St. Austin
orignal and then as to this it is not a translation yet 5. Then necessitie of traditions is excluded for then it could not be truely said that the Latin Bible is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners 6. Exceptions against St. Matthew's Gospel which are not in points necessarie to faith and manners do not hinder the authentickness of the Greek because the Latin is authentick as not being deficient in points necessarie to faith and manners 7. We may infer from hence thus those errours in the Latin Bible though not material to faith or manners might have been saved by the Church or not if they might have been saved then the Church may deceive our trust if they could not then it may be deceived and so we have but a fallible ground for our assent to any of her definitions and in particular for the Gospel of St. Matthew So that all his shifts fail him in this important point Surely this whole point about the belief of Scripture to be the word of God was a great shift of his for the subject should have been supposed in the dispute of the attributes The point in question was whether the Scripture doth clearly propound things necessary to Faith and manners And he hath blotted how much Paper to debate our tenure of the Scripture Yet it may be he hath gotten nothing by it nor by the Holy Fathers whom he hath somewhat to say to onely for himself The greatest part of this Paragraph comes too late And all that would seem to take away my former Answers is taken away My Answer to his Exception that Luther did not see the Apocalyps and the Epistle of Saint Iames to be canonical is yet sufficient that the negative Argument doth not conclude He replies in our case it is a strong proof I again deny the Consequence The objects have themselves equally to all but they are not equally seen surely not in this case because the Spirit of God is a free Agent Yea Saint Luke the 24.16 their eyes were holden that they could not see him Gods actings upon objects and in degrees are at his own pleasure And secondly The sense of the definitions of the Church is visible is it not If not how are we guided If so yet every one doth not see them And thirdly If Luther had such an irradiated understanding why did he not yet see and Spalatensis also the Monarchy of the Church to be of Divine Right if he had not why doth he say so The light is the same the Proposition is the same his eyes or understanding no better nor more assisted why then did not they see what he sees As to his Answer to my second Answer you see we do not follow him Luther blindly we need not return any thing but this that he mistakes me in the terme blindly he supposeth me to speak as in relation to this point about the Books denied or doubted of by him but I spoke it in general that we do not follow him with blinde obedience as the Jesuites do their General And though the Apocalyps and other Books were doubted of this doth not prejudice us no more than it doth them for the visibility of the Church and the reception of the Books Apocryphal These Books were received by them because they were worthy to be received or not but arbitrarily If the former why did not those before see them to be such If the latter then infallibility proceeds by the will and so infallibility may be on either part of the contradiction And so we have no reason to say any more if whatsoever they will say is infallible Further he chargeth us with obtruding a Canon of our own coyning for Iudge of controversies Here is two things false First That we obtrude a new Canon This not so we have the same Canon which the ancient Fathers had before the Council of Carthage But they have made a new Canon by taking in the Apocryphal and by canonizing the vulgar Latine And the other is false for we do not obtrude the Scripture as Judge of controversies in any formal sense And again he would mar the Canon all agreeing that divers Books of the true Canon be quite lost How often comes this in But first He must go less not divers Books which may import many One or two are not in common account divers If then he means by divers many Books so all do not agree If he means one or two so not divers Secondly He takes the termes the true Canon either respectively to those Divine Books which were inspired and yet never put into the Canon as it was reveiwed by S. Iohn as learned men suppose or after they were put in and acknowledged If the former he cannot say that we have not a true and just Canon as to that which is necessary And if he denies it he is a friend to Celaeus Porphyrie and Iulian. But if the latter then who lost them Surely those who had the minde to keep the reputation of the necessary use of Traditions upon this account But if Traditions be but as necessary as the Trent Council intends in those terms pari pietatis affectu why may we not think that some of these may be lost also and then where shall we finde the Iudge who is to determine of points by the tenure of Traditions or else some of their most acute and learned men have lost their insight into ground of truth Amongst us after the Church's declaration was notified concerning any book for canonical you will never finde it to be doubted of by any true Catholick Ans This argument concludes if true unity but not truth Things of Divinity are not to be measured by such a Lesbian rule And this agreement cannot prove their Canon good for unles the Canon was good the agreement was not good 2. If we should bring things of debate to no other test we should never have any determination for what is there which is not questioned by some of them Now it is all one to the Romanists whether the Canon be questioned or any thing else which the Church proposeth since they are bound to believe all alike but to the point in question Gregory was a true Catholike Gregory did not hold the Book of Machabees to be canonical after declaration by the Council of Carthage therefore that which he saies is false The major was commended to them before the assumption they may see in the 19. of his Morals the 15. Ch. Therefore they had best hold the Book of Machabees to be Canonical onely so as to be read in Churches And if so onely as Saint Ierom also held then this book is not simply canonical if otherwise that which he saies is not true and Gregory was not of their opinion So then we have Pares Aquilas pila minantia pilis Pope against Pope infallibility against infallibility And since we know which is right we must deny both
N. 50. Here he tels us of an argument in the 14 num of the former treatise with infallible faith this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he beggs the question And if they cannot prove the cause to be theirs with out our free graunt they are not like to have it And therefore this being denied him as before all that he would build thereupon must fall to wit therefore we must be assisted in this infallible knowledge by some other infallible means and no other infallible meanes can with any shadow of probability be said given to us but the infallible authority of the Church therefore her athority must be infallible as shall at large be shewed in the next chap. and then in the next after that that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman This is all wast and lost unles they could maintain it to be necessary charity in us to preserve their cause from starving by graunting that which it ought not to have And 2. Dato non concesto suppose there must be some other meanes of infallible deciding doubtful sense of Scripture I can make it a question whether they can plead the next right as if they came vacuam possessionem for the place may be ful by universal tradition which surely is not the same with the Roman Church for the whole surely is greater then the part and then also when you prove the Roman faith by universal tradition you would prove the Roman faith by the Roman and this is idem per idem And as for the 3. thing that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman which he saies he will prove in the last chapter surely if I may speak it without offence he does very well to refer it to the last for he may doe any thing before it But also since his supposition that we cannot be certain by the Scriptures infallibly of their own true sense in points necessary to salvation with infallible faith must fall without a better support we may be at our last already for if this be not good the other chapters make number And this number makes no weight He doth nothing in it but tell us that he hath done so and so which we interpret nothing Infallibility should not need many words In this N. 52. he would wipe off the suspicion of disrespect to Scipture in those termes he used and would lay a blame upon me for my censure of his words to this purpose His words were these if he would have given us a book for Iudge he would never have given us for our Iudge such a book as Scripture is which very often speaketh obscurely sometimes so prophetically that most would think it spake of the present time when it speaketh of the time to come that it speaketh of one person for example of David when it speaketh of another for example of Christ And much more I added to this effect that I might be rightly understood when I said that God would never have given us such a book for our judge To what of this he said in his former treatise I said Sir Let me have leave to speak affectionately to you Do not you see what disrespects of Scripture if not blasphemies your opinion doth miserably betray you to if you follow it Would any sober man let fall such words as if God had intended the Scripture for our judge such a book as Scripture is So you This I said And now he examins these words strictly and saies My adversary to avoide this argument so mangleth the sense that he may-make my words sound of a blasphemous disrespect reporting them as if I should have said if God had intended Scripture for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture Ans Surely this is a false charge that I have mangled his words for I have given the full sense of them And this may be demonstrated by denying of the end which he makes to be to avoide the argument For I do not see any such difficulty in the argument that I should decline it and fall upon the person This is not my mind or manner But I could find fault with his dealing with me even here for he puts together that which I did not put together For he saies I accused him of a blasphemous disrespect whereas I said disrespect if not blasphemies and also the termes if not blasphemies without a grain of charity might have been construed without an affirmation Nether doth he right me or clear himself in the prosecution of his defence For my words in all reason doe represent as much as if I had added what he said I should have added These words if God had intended a book for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture must connotate this sense that he would not have given us such a book as Scripture for our Iudge And therefore he needed not to quarrel upon the omission as if I had not dealt fairely with him consider it in the form of an hypothetical proposition if God had intended a book for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture is what need be added for our Iudge when it is understood of course They know the rule Quod necessario subintelligitur nunquam deest That which is necessarily understood is never wanting And therefore have I not done his words any injury by mangling them nor yet by interpretation of them still they seem to sound such an imperfect book as Scripture and must do so if they have full sense in them But also if we might say what S. Austin said of the Heretiques words Bene haec acciperentur nisi ab eo dicerentur cujus sensus notus est so here these words might be better construed if they were not spoken by such whose sense was known For unless the Scripture be a book imperfect in regard of matter what need of tradition unless the Scripture were imperfect in regard of cleareness what needed an infallible judge to decide controversies about the sense Therefore he cannot get clearely off Aqua haeret And surely he doth not helpe himself or his cause by a like case he puts if God had intended the Scripture for sole Iudge in Law controversies he would never have given us such a book as Scripture is for our Iudge Doth this passe any handsome and respective reflexion upon Scripture As if it were no fitter to decide controversies in Divinity then in the Law And do they not think that we may have more reason to be bold with them than they with Scripture if God had intended that we should have been absolutely determined in matters of faith by General Council would he have given us such a pack'd Council as the Council of Trent was And yet moreover all he saies is besides the mark For this we doe not contend for that the scripture is the sole Judge
this point Si quis dixerit extremam unctionem non esse vere proprie sacramentum a beato Iacolo Apostolo promulgatum sed ritum tantum acceptum a patribus aut figmentum humanum Anathema sit If any one shall say that extreme unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament promulged by the blessed Apostle St. Iames but a rite taken from the fathers or to be in humane â—igment let him be Anathema Neither did Christ institute it nor 〈◊〉 â—es promulge it nor did the fathers it seems â—ake it â—or a sacrament So as it was said of Origen Ingenium sâ—â—m facit ecclesiae Sacramenta so do these men ouâ— of their own wit make sacraments of the Church Only Origen made mysteries of the Church as the word is taken largely these make Sacraments as the word is taken strictly And surely they are hard put to it to attribute what there to the Sacrament which is atttributed to prayer which is therefore so much Commended by the Apostle in the following verses To take notice here of that which is new N. 59. He here confronts the clearness of that Text this is my body with the clearness of those Texts I produced for the Sunday and Baptism of Infants He saies they are words expressed by four several writers of the Scripture without any intimation of their being spoken figuratively Ans We have produced some Texts for the observation of the Lords day and for Baptism of Infants without any figure therefore our Texts may upon this account be as clear Secondly If the sense of this Text be so clear why did not the Ages of the Church urge it before the Lateran Councill were they all also blind as they must be if the Text was so clear in their sense And Thirdly If the Text so clear of it self what need to conferr it with the sixth of St. Iohn and if they would conferr Texts they might find more against them in the points of difference But what will they say if the sixth of St. Iohn speaks not of Sacramental eating For if so how can the 53. ver be understood for then Infants unless they are to have the Communion as antiently and the Thief upon the Crosâ— and all in time of Persecution which died without the Sacrament are damned but as they know they are not all of a mind in this for Cressy thinks the Chap. is not to be taken of the Sacrament and Bellarmine will find us more of this perswasion as Gabriel and Cusanâ— and Cajetan and Tapperus and Hesselius and Iansenius in his 4 th b. de Sacramentâ— Euch. Cap. 5. and they have good reason to exempt this Chap. from this use because it speaks as strictly of the Cup. Therefore let them consider what hath been said before upon this point and then let them referre the issue to a compare betwixt the clearness of texts for them in points of difference and of texts for us as to things necessary for this should have been the state of the question The contradiction he makes by the shift is not yet well answered He said in the former paper that the words are clear in this Sacrament and yet also that the Scripture doth not decide this point Upon this I said how farre is this from a contradiction He saies now that this doth arise out of my speaking according to your principles Ans He was much mistaken if he thought I could be thus deceived with a supposal of his own consequence for one of my principles He would cavill thus this text which he brings is more clear for him then those I bring are clear for me Then if my texts less clear for me do prove my points those texts more clear for him do prove his texts But we say the texts he brings are not so clear for him as they are clear against him and therefore how can he proceed upon our principles And yet again he saies and again you say on the other side by these our texts clearer then yours this controversie is not clearly decided therefore I must consequently say that according to you this controversie the Scripture doth not decide Ans Some are blamed for charging upon opinions remote consequences but he chargeth me with a consequence of his opinion that because he thinks his texts more clear for him then mine for me I must needs also say so to free him from inconvenience surely we can hold our principles better then he would make them And yet once more he will play the Sophister it is according to your principles that these texts must be clear because they be clearer then those which you are forced to affirm clear And again you must say that they are not clear for fear you should confess them to decide against you Ans This harpes upon the same string he supposeth me a Captive to his consequences upon his own opinion My principle is good that points necessary are clearly set down in Scripture but his assumption is not right that his texts are more clear then mine this I demand the proof of If I were bound by my principles or his discourse to confess that his texts were clearer then mine he would say somewhat but falsum prius And yet this is fairely returnable to him he is bound by the condition of their principles to say that their texts are clear for him and yet they are not so clear for him as they are against him because they have neither reason nor Antiquity for their sense and yet must say again that the text hath not decided this point for feare it should be able to decide controversies And now he draws up again now if these two places be denied to be clear with clarity sufficient to put an end to the controversie then according to my principles scarce any controversie will be decided by any text Ans He hath seen the reasons why those texts must be denied to bear his sense and whether he hath as well cleared my texts for things necessary to be conteined plainly in Scripture let those judge whose interess it is not to be Judges To such I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. He doth very ill to argue from his conceit to an impossibility in the thing as if if these texts did not clearly speak this his sense no controversie could be determined by any text A non esse ad non posse non valet He might have known that the Nicene Fathers determined the Coessentiality of the Son of God by Scripture and that Bellarmin concludes against the Anabaptists by Scripture And that the Trent Council I hope concluded extreme unction by Scripture so that it lay in Scripture clearly determined as in actu signato the Council did but call it out and shew it to the people 3. He should have said according to his purpose scarse any controversie can then be determined by Scripture for speculative principles may yeild more then ingagements Persons will ever plead
that though it be not found in Scripture in the term yet according to equivalence But what saith Bellarmin in his 3. b. de sacr Euch. cap. 23. Etiamsi Scriptura quam supra adduximus videatur nobis tam clara ut possit cogere hominem non protervum tamen an ita fit merito dubitari potest So then the Scripture seems to him to be in this point so clear that it might compel a man not pertinacious Yet he must needs spill the milk he gives lest we should come no more to the Roman Cow But if a Scripture may be so clear to them in a point of controversie why not to us in points necessary Yea the Trent Counsel goes further in their 13 Sess They say the words do carry before them that proper and most open signification propiam illam apertissimam significationem prae se ferunt And I hope they carried a plain and most open signification did they not if they did not then here is a falsity to the Councils Declaration if they did so may Scripture have a plain and most open signification in points of faith Again if the Sacrament of extreme unction was determined by the Trent Counsel with respect to Scripture as before why should we not stand to Scripture in other points And this may be sufficient out of their own principles And as for our own principles as to the question about the properties of the Divine Persons we need not labour therein For if we hold that all things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture then it is consequent hereunto that the truth of those properties is no more necessary to be believed than according to what clearness they are delivered in by Scripture And then Secondly to answer to the point it self those opposite relations as Aquinas calleth them whereby the H. persons are distinguished in their personalities do connotate themselves sufficiently For the Father being the first Person must be of himself the Son as such must be begotten The H. Ghost since there is but one only Son as is plain in Scripture must not be begotten but proceeds which is the expression of Scrip-there Indeed there is a question whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son But as to this we need not consult the antient reading of the Athanasian Creed if the Mr. of the sentences may be believed who thinks there is not so vast a difference as that either part did destroy salvation And if it be absolutely necessary to believe as the Roman Church in this point why could not Pope Urban see the truth hereof in the dispute with the Greeks about it as well as our Anselm Why did he bring him into the Lists with this Preface Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis papam And surely it seems to be as possible for the unlearned people to be saved without a positive faith herein as it was for the learned Greeks in a positive difference unless our adversaries will damn them all who hold not with them herein He goes on your second answer is destroyed by the former Answ Yes surely if our adversaries are to be our judges we need not hold our articles which we hold necessary upon the authority of the Church but upon clear Texts and clearer Texts too than they have for their transubstantiation or authority of the Church But to the main matter of my answer he makes no return I said although we believe what is said in Athanasius his creed yet therefore we are not bound to believe it upon the Authority of the Church since he would have believed it though the Church had not as he did sometimes differ from the common profession of the Church in the consubstantiality of the sonne of God And what saies he to this nothing And besides the Authority of the Church hath not it selfe equally to the passages in the Creed and to transubstantiation And therefore Scotus said that this transubstantiation was no dogma fidei before the Lateran Council as Bellarmin saies in his 3. b. de sacram Euch. 23. ch For as for the consent of the Fathers which he saies he did non read surely Scotus did very well know what it was since the consent of the Fathers is by the Schoolemen laid for the foundation of school-Divinity It remaineth therefore that both my answers may be good according to both principles Another instance of things necessary not clearly taught by Scripture he does here re-urge N. 61. namely Baptism of Infants And here he names my answer that it is not necessary for the Salvation of the Children to be baptized But here I distinguished of a necessity of praecept and a necessity of mean the former we granted the latter we denied so as that if it be not baptized it is undoubtedly damned These words do make my sense to be understood against an absolute necessity without which no possibility of Salvation To prove this I brought the Text St. Marke the 16.6 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeteh not shall be damned now this Text he saith speaketh nothing of Children And this gloss he gives upon the latter part of that Text He that believeth not and consequently would positively not be baptized shall be damned Ans He trifles I acknowledge that the Text speaks not of Infants for the drift of my discourse upon this Text was otherwise namely upon the case of those of age And my argument did runne upon advantage thus if the H. Gh. Did not reduplicate damnation upon defect of baptism to those of age then much less reason is there to exclude Infants from Salvation who may have baptism in re but in voto not as they speak This was the effect of my discourse let the point come to the pinch Though they do believe yet should they have the seale of faith but if they do not believe damnation here proceeds not upon defect of baptism but upon defect of faith which if Bellarmin had considered he would not have annexed Salvation imediately to baptism in his 2. b. de ef sacr c. 3. And not to faith but as a disposition to baptism 2. All positive refusal of baptism makes a defect of baptism but all defect of baptism doth not make even in those of age a refusal thereof Now it is casus dabilis that one of age may believe and yet may not have baptism as the necessity may fall out Shall this man be damned though he hath faith because he hath not baptism which he could not have and this was the case which the Martyr that on a suddain when one of the forty shrunke stepped in and made up the number as St. Basil relates it he believed and was not Baptized What was he damned no they will say he had baptism in voto and the baptism of bloud Well but if there were an absolute necessity of baptism as there is of faith he must
have been damned notwithstanding absolute necessity knowes no dispensations But therefore he produceth a Text for absolute necessity St. Iohn the 3.5 Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of heaven Ans If we compare this verse with the third we need not make any other construction then of a necessity of being born from above Neither is it likely that Christ would have spoken no otherwise to Nicodemus of baptism had he meant it so And Ferus though he speaks of this sense ad literam yet hath he other senses thereof And if it be compared with the other Text St. Matthew 3.11 you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire as that Text is to be understood by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so may this also notwithstanding the order of the words But 2. Dato non concesso that it is to be understood of Baptismal water yet the Rhemists upon the place do confess that in two cases Baptismal water is not necessary Namely in the case of martyrdome and if they have a desire of it but are prevented necessarily by death And the reason thereof is sufficient because God hath not bound his grace in respect of his own freedome to the Sacraments and so Ferus upon the place Deus enim non alligavit potentiam suam Sacramentis c. God hath not tied his own power to the Sacraments By his ordinate will indeed he gives grace by the Sacraments But nevertheles he can give it without the Sacrament Let them then tell me why Infants may not have rem Sacramenti without the seale as if God should have no favour for Infants because they cannot be qualified for the priviledge Let then the Rhemists and Ferus be compurgators for the pernicious doctrine of mine as he calls it And now whatsoever testimony he produceth of the necessity of baptism unles St. Austin's as to Infants they will stand very well with my termes in their ordinary sense which doth not contradict an ordinary necessity of it to Infants but again that all the Fathers were of this opinion I can deny I except Tertullian And St. Austin for those of age holdes but an ordinary necessity as appears in his 4. b. De Bapt. Contra Donat. 23. ch This ordinary necessity I stand for He himself intends no more by his testimonies Dr. Tayler's and others and therefore he absolves me himself but I cannot absolve him from ignorance in the Elench This doth not contradict me who do dispute now against an absolute necessity which he must maintain or else in this he comes short of his design And also that that allowance of baptism of Infants after it be done doth not inferre an absolute necessity of their being damned in the judgment of the Fathers if they were not Baptized if they will take Mr. Hookers opinion for all let them consult him in his 5. b. 33. p. where he saith I know there are many sentences found in the books and writings of the antient Fathers to prove both Ecclessiastical and Moral defects in the Ministers of Baptism a bar to the heavenly benefit thereof Now in Lay-men I trow there are Ecclesiastical defects for there is a defect in not being Ecclesiastical And therefore whether others mistake the Fathers either in the point of fact or in the reason of that allowance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he gives me a Syllogism which we will not neglect because it is very rare with him He disputes upon my distinction of necessity thus This precept is necessarily to be fulfilled this precept is not plainly set down in Scripture therefore all necessary points are not plainly set down in Scripture This hath the face but not the form of a Syllogism But to pass that we answer therefore that this Syllogism doth not conclude contradictorily to the state of the question which is whether all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Now all that is necessary to be done is larger then all that is necessary to be done unto Salvation Though all things necessary to be done unto Salvation are necessary to be done yet all that is necessary to be done is not necessary to be done unto Salvation The former are necessary necessitate medii the latter necessitate praecepti Now the knowledg of the former is simply necessary the knowledg of the latter is not so necessary Whatsoever is known to be praecepted is to be necessarily done but whatsoever is praecepted is not necessary to be known So that also his Syllogism was peccant in the fallacie of the consequent He followes me then your Answer will not helpe you out here whatsoever is necessarily inferred from the Scriptures is binding in the vertue of the principles why so because he saies because you cannot shew that this precept given to the parents is necessarily inferred out of Scripture So now he is upon the minor of the former Syllogism he would then prove it by a negative Induction Not out of the Institution of our Saviour for he also instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist not necessary for Infants Ans first this is no argument it doth not follow from the denial of one species to another because he did not institute the Eucharist as necessary for infants threfore he did not institute the Sacrament of baptism as necessary for Infants 2. they know there is not the same reason for the Institution of the Eucharist for Infants as for the Institution of baptism For this is administred to the child without its own faith the other is administred upon faith to confirmation 3. If they will be ruled by tradition and the authority of the Church the Eucharist was accounted also as necessary for Infants Now that tradition came from Christ as his institution or not if it did then there is some reason for baptism to Infants if not how shall we believe tradition or the authority of the Church He proceeds not out of substitution to Circumcision for so it should not be necessary to women To be even with them The high Priest was only of males the Pope succeeds the high Priest therefore the Popedome was not competible to Ioane some of them would fain have somewhat for woman to be proportionable to Circumcision of males towards the taking away of original sinne which should be an object of tradition But as the unmarried was included in the parent so the woman included under her husband as to this Yet such another argument we have then it should be necessary only for those of the Iewish nation As if Circumcision was inioyned to the Iew upon the quatenus of the nation and not as they were members of the Church under the same Covenant with Christians as to the substance thereof and therefore Eusebius saies of some of those under the law that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were reall Christians or in
effect Christans though not in denomination That which followes was cast in by me ex abundanti and not as such a decretory argument namely besides what may be supposed by the baptism of whole families And therefore he needed not to have said it is no evident consequence It was never intended for such Valeat quantum valere potest And yet if it be as probable or more that in all those families complexively there were some at least if but one or two Infants this consequence I think I may say is better then any they have given us to prove their infallibility At the end of this number he saies I insist not upon the authorities I alledged out of St. Austin St. Chrys because I deal with one who little regards authority confessed to be the Fathers Ans He might first have answered what I said to his citation of St. Austin but it seems by his neglect either that the Fathers are not for him or he not for the Fathers or indeed both and the latter because the former He is not for the Fathers because they are not for him And let them consider that of St. Austin in his 4. b. de Bap. contra Don. 28. ch Tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis baptismi Sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit Notwithstanding we may truly guesse what the Sacrament of Baptism does avail in infants out of the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received And Bellarmin must think Scripture good against Anabaptists but not for us against them who make better use of it as a tradition N. 62. And now to make an end of his long Chap. as he saies himself and I say so too but it might have been made shorter by him by halfe he saies he concludes as I would have him namely that these points were and ought to be determined by the Church upon necessity of Salvation He saies now This I prove by this argument This point and all the former are necessary to be believed with an infallible assent but we cannot believe any point with an infallible assent unless it be determined by infallible authority And the authority of the Scripture hath not determined these points then since no other infallible authority can be found on Earth if we deny the authority of the Church to be infallible her authority must needs be infallible Ans after a long chap. to make his word good he makes as long an argument which might have been put into two lines But part of his book was to be length But we answer in short first to the major proposition if he meanes when they are believed they are to be believed with an infallible assent we grant it or when they are clearely proposed are so to be believed we grant it but if he means it thus that this point and all the former are necessary to be believed with an infallible assent upon necessity of Salvation it is denied And he hath not nor can prove it 2. As to his assuming that the authority of the Scriptures hath not determined these points we say first that so farre as they are necessary they are determined in Scripture And 2. they are not so clearly determined in Scripture because they are not so necessary And yet we may say as St. Austin in such a case about intellectuall vision lib. 12 de gen ad literam cap. 25 Aliud est errare in his quae videt aliud errare quia non videt We do not erre in seing them in Scriptures but we do erre because we do not see them To end then Scotus proposeth this question As Mr. Hooker notes utrùm cognitio supernaturalis necessaria viatori sit sufficienter tradita in Sacra Scriptura whether supernaturall knowledg necessary to a Travailler be sufficiently delivered in the Holy Scripture and he concludes affirmatively And so may we 3. And for overplus if these points were necessary to be referred to the determination of the Church we could easily dato non concesso remove them from the Roman Court and try them by the universal Church of all places and times with which universal Church the Roman is not converted and by which it is not like to be converted CHAP. IV. The Church is not an infallible Iudge The first Number is a Preface depending upon hopes of the former discourse But to this we say nothing save only that they shall never be rewarded for such hope unless they can prove their word to be the Word of God FIrst those words Matthew 16.19 spoken to St. Peter upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it allow the Church a security from ever admitting any doctrine so pernicious that the gates of hell may prevaile against her Ans first though these words were spoken to St. Peter yet it doth not hence follow that they were spoken of St. Peter exclusively to the rest And then the Fathers as before understood it of his faith not of his person and of his faith objectively not subjectively And then 3. this respects not only the Church repraesentative but the Church formall against which principally the gates of hell do not prevaile and so the words runne handsomly for the Church that the words allow the Church security from ever admitting any doctrine so pernicious that the gates of hell may prevaile against her And therefore upon these considerations we flatly deny to him the following words that this promise made to the Church is that which mainely makes for my purpose and surely that which follows makes for us and may be a fourth answer to the former words whether the Church be built upon St. Peter and his successours or upon the faith of St. Peter is not the thing I chiefely aime at my aime is to find a Church built on a rock so strong that no errour shall ever overthrow it So then if we assume that the invisible Church is such we are agreed Only my adversary seems to have more mind to retreat then to retract But my adversary will have it to be understood of the representative Church because he saies he is now assured the Church shall never be a nest of errours idolatrous superstitious wickedly assuming the authority of an infallible Tribunal without sufficient warrant all or any of those things would bring her to the gates of hell they being all damnable impieties Ans Now we shall see that this makes not for him He was for the Roman Church was he not And yet will not here meddle how this concerns the Roman Church then how doth this make for him In the former treatise of his this Text was meant of St. Peter and his successours and now he will not meddle with what concernes St. Peter or his successours Will these things here be reconciled till Tishby comes 2. This makes for me not only that he is not willing as
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
them then note that this he speakes is in cases of uncertainty namely about things of question but we are ultimately upon points necessary And then 2. He speaks against casting off obedience but we are upon assent of judgment And then 3. The rule he useth speakes that we should not publiquely oppose his decrees but we are upon the negative only whether he may not suspend his opinion And hence the Author discourseth that we may leave them we may cast them off and oppose them when we are certaine as protestants were that what they command God doth countermand And for the second as he nameth him I think all things considered he hath little from him for his use As the scribe at least mistooke the quotation so the Author I think mistook the man In the places quoted pag. 310. 311. n. 110. there is nothing like It is true that excellent Author had great cause to urge convenent obedience to humane lawes but he denies intuitive obedience to any law but of God And therefore if he and Mr. Chillingworth be joined in the testimony that which answered one may answer the other And further if they will take p. 110. And so on for n. 110. They may finde enough to satisfie them of his opinion that he held Scripture a sufficient rule in matters necessary and therefore the obedience he urgeth must be in thinges of order which is extrinsecall to our debate and not blind neither as p. 110. The third Authority is rightly quoted but not rightly applied out of that excellent book for it speaks expresly of externall obedience we are upon internall He speaks for peace my adversary should apply it to faith He speaks it as to private persons my adversary should vltimately apply it to the Church nationall That which followes is a cavill that then the private man when all comes to all is the last judge to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred Ans The private man is no judge authoritative to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred but exerciseth for himself the judgment of discretion as being to be perswaded in his own minde as the Apostle speaks And thus much must be allowed by my adversary who lately asserted prudence to be of use in chusing Religion Yea if Prudence be tolerated in things of Faith Sapience is to be commended which refers to the highest principles and those are of Scripture And though it be some ingenuous prudence to preferre the judgment of a General Council or the Church as to the suspension of my opinion against them yet surely will it be sapience to rest my faith in principles of faith Therefore this and much more of this discourse comes not home to the question whether God hath bound me to give absolute assent to the definitions of the Church and to believe their commands to be just eo ipso because theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither is it impossible that a General Council should not see it There is a double impossiblity simple and Physical and then Moral The Simple impossiblity would make Faith but such is denied The Moral If it were granted could not make such a Faith as they stand for namely an infallible assent But the Moral impossibility which is no more than a great difficulty is not to be yeilded neither since the Trent Council They might as well not see that which was Evident as they did see that which was not Evident Communion under both kindes was Evident in Scripture and the practise of the Church yet notwithstanding they would see what was not Evident Communion-under one kind And therefore least Communion under both kindes should seem more Evident Bellarmin prudently informes that some of their learned men would not construe the 2. of St. Iohn of Sacramental participation And the ground he goes upon is sandy that which is truly Evident will of it self appear to be so or at least to the most judicious upright and best instructed Prelats of the Church Ans This may appear to them de facto not so Were not the Trent Fathers so And yet they did not see what was Evident in the point of the Communion and in some other points too as some of their own Religion did think as we have it in the History of the Trent Council 2. What a case should the poor people be in since populus non distinguit and yet they must compare the most judicious and most upright and best instructed Prelats Thirdly Take the Fathers of all ages and places and then their Doctrines will not abide the test as hath been made good to them by Bishop Jewel And therefore their Doctrines are not Evident by their own Principle because not Evident to them And then fourthly somewhat Evident to them the Romans have cashiered Infant Communion the Millenary opinion trine immersion standing up in prayer therefore they had best betake themselves to more than humane assistance namely from the Holy Ghost His debate afterwards about the consideration of the cause of the Censure will come to little if it be considered that the act of not hearing the Church is ambiguous and may relate either to the non-assent or to the contempt The former doth not simply expose him to the Censure in Heaven the latter may And if he understood his own terms he must rather take them of the latter because he speaks of an act of not hearing For the non-assent is negative to an act and so is the Greek considerable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is it which makes him truely guilty of not hearing the Church That which follows in way of concession is destructive of his building for he grants an errability of the key in which case the Censure is not ratified in Heaven So then how shall we know whether any be truely guilty For as the Church cannot be infallible to us at all to believe it if not infallible in all as Mr. Knot argues and my Adversary too if he denies the distinction of damnative errours so it cannot bind infallibly in any if not in all though there be a distance betwixt Faith and fact the proportion is the same And yet again if they will divide here by affirming infallibility in Faith fallibility in Fact why do they urge this Text which respects the latter And therefore that which follows And so the Church cannot erre in denouncing excommunication against such a person in dependance upon the premises is as much as to say the Church cannot erre when the key doth not erre Yet it might have erred in sensu divis◠which is sufficient for our purpose because our dispute is upon the point of possibility 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle said It is necessary that that it be while it be yet was it not therefore necessary to be before it was for that destroys the distinction of things contingent from things necessary And therefore what follows hereupon if I should answer he would account necessary to
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
teaching them what the universal Church holds to be Gods Law than by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be Gods law as you would have them do Ans This doth not contradict If they say it is more likely we can say it But what is this to Faith And upon this condition they are undone For which of their private Priests are able to say positively that this is the doctrine of the whole Church for all ages and places since the Apostles The Church otherwise considered hath no considerable Authority and so we mean the universal Church Secondly Although thus the Church is not the regula regulans but the regula regulata yet they cannot bring the consent of the universal Church for the points of difference Ad num 11. 12. 13. 14. Herein he gives me many words towards asserting Tradition to be a sufficient bottom of faith but in all these how little he takes away of my answer any one may say better then I. In the beginning of the eleventh he goes upon a false supposition that in the times before Moses the traditions were received by the Church upon the infallibility of the Church They were received by the Church not infallibly by the Church The Church had it self herein as a mean of proposall not as the last motive of faith Their faith was terminated by the spirit of God in the matter of tradition was not determined by the Church's Authoritative delivery the objectum quod of their faith was not the Churches proposal Then 2. supposing what we do not grant yet there is not now the same reason for the Church because they had more appearances tâ—en of God to and in the Church then now there is or hath been since the Apostles times And therefore the rule is good Distingue tempora 3. This will make a circle How were they assured infallibly of tradition by the Church How were they infallibly assured of the Church by tradition then the resolution of their faith was not into the credit of the Church as infallible Therefore doth my Antagonist in vain say to me shew the ground they had there to hold the Church infallible Nay the proofe hereof must come from the affirmer Asserentis est probare They are to make good here two things first that they did hold their Church infallible otherwise how could any of the people hold it to be infallible unles the Church did so determin of iâ— selfe and then that though they did hold it to be infallible yet that it was so and must be so otherwise they could not believe anything Afterwards he makes a perâ—triction of my distinction that the word in substance of it was before the Church which was begotten by it and then he tells me what I adde thereunto that when there is as much need and as great a certainty of tradition as formerly then he may urge the argument Here he shifts and shuffles He tell me that I must understand it of the unwritten word and to be only in orall â—radition Right I understand it so But what is this to 〈◊〉 question whether the manner of conveyance by tâ—e 〈◊〉 in way of orall tradition was infallible and then whether we are bound to take all or part of necessary doctrine from the Church this way And can they now conclude the Church infallible in the matter of tradition besâ—ide the word written by their tradition of the word unwritten And can they shew that the Iews were equally bound to any Tradition before the word written which was not agreable to the word afterwards written Otherwise how can they supply this to their purpose in urging Traditions differing from Scripture in matter equally to Scripture as the Trent Council defines as before Let them come to the point and satisfie demands In his discourse following I can grant him all untill he come to this they only had Gods word revealed by tradition This we must debate upon as being ambiguously delivered for only may relate to the subject they and so the sense is the Iewes only had Gods word revealed by Tradition but this is concerned here or only may have relation to Gods word as to the matter which was revealed and so the sense is that they had only that word which was revealed by tradition and this comes not to the point neither or only may relate to the manner of revealing by tradition and thus indeed it is proper for the debate but thus it is denied if we take it thus that the word of God was no otherwise assured to them than by tradition though they onely being Jews had onely that word of God which was revealed by tradition to believe yet had they not only tradition by which they did beleeve And therefore his conclusion must be naught and all he saies to that purpose even to the end of his Paragraph In the twelfth he deales about the need of tradition and he saies that the need or necessity of Tradition which you conceive to have been greater then than now doth not make the Traditions more Credible Ans True it is that simply the need of them doth not make them to be more credible if they be to be believed but there is the question whether there is now any to be believed necessarily in point of faith when there is not such need of them Scripture is as credible when we are heaven in regard of it self yet there we have no need of it but as since we have no need of it there we have reason to believe that there it will not take place so neither should Traditions when there is not that need of them My answer then did bear it self upon this that if there were that necessity of Tradition now as then he might urge the argument because God have would provided sufficiently for security of tradition now as then falsum prius And we may take his own similitude those that have read many credible books of France have they any need of orall Tradition to believe that there is such a Kingdome as France he saies no yet these last are as certain he saies Well then no more need have we of tradition for the doctrine of Christ which we sufficiently read in Scripture So then although he concludes Traditions hopefull and superflua non nocent yet can he not conclude them as necessary which should have been demonstrated But this he would doe in following words even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions we have ever had with them a perpetual succession of horrible Divisions opening still wider and wider Again odd reflexions upon Scripture but it is well he jopnes Traditions with it to take part of the consequence as he thinks and yet it may be he does not think so but that the cause of the Divisions is only Scripture and had we had no Scriptures we should have had fewer Divisions Doth he think so Then how is Scripture necessary as they generally confesse when it
had been convenient that there had been no Scripture upon this consideration And how should they prove the Authority of the Church without Scripture Well but take his words in their ordinary sense and what kinde of argument will this be Even now when we have Scripture and Traditions therefore now Traditions are now as necessary or more then when there was no Scripture Nay they will seem to be less necessary when notwithstanding them we have more divisions How then shall these divisions be remedied It may be by more traditions What New traditions oppositum in apposito But in the next words he speaks out All divisions commonly caused by misinterpretation of the Scriptures to which inconvenience they were not subject before all Scripture was written And therefore in this respect there is now after the writing of the Scriptures a greater necessity then ever of Traditions Ans So then he hath now commented upon the former words and his sense is plain that had we not had Scripture we should have had less need of Traditions First we had thought the Learned men of their Church had devised Traditions not because we had Scripture but because Scripture was wanting in the matter of necessary doctrine And so he himself telles us presently after that since part of the Canon is lost we must say there is use of Traditions And yet now we have more need of Traditions because Scripture is written But it may be he will say there is more need of Traditions to clear the interpretations of Scripture Yea but then he should mean by Traditions Traditive interpretations of Scripture as they are called But are not these lost too For who is there can give us any account of them And as for other Traditions we are never a whit the better he hath told us before since notwithstanding we have them we have a perpetuall succession of horrible divisions opening still wider wider Let them remember that of Nâ—lus to accuse Scripture is to accuse God 2. Are the divisions necessary in points necessary If he means so it is flatly denied If in other points it is not to the question principal 3. A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia if we be bound to Tradition as such we are bound to all and yet all Traditions they have not kept 4. Traditions doe not lessen divisions about interpretation of Scripture for one division is whether Traditions have any ground in Scripture And he may know that he hath named Texts to this purpose and because there are differences about Traditions therefore by his argument we should not be ruled by them as indeed they do not order themselves by them They keep Tradition in the controversie for the use of the Church not in practice as he said Antiquitatem semper crepant novi indies vivunt and we must let goe the Scripture in controversie and practice for the use of Tradition and the Church they and their Fathers have troubled the waters of Scripture for the cheif Fisher Let them let their Traditions alone and they will see their discourse is a non causa Then he repeats importunately the uses of Traditions but not my refutation And he speaks of Traditions of such matter as we have in Scripture which is beside the mark we are about Traditions in their sense of that matter which is not in Scripture equally to be believed to Scripture which should prove the insufficiency of Scripture and the necessity of them This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore much he saies to this purpose is like the drift of snow which makes an heap but will not bear one up from sinking in it Yet I must note his wit in that he saies that God must purposely by a miracle have infringed the course of nature if the former Traditions of the Church should grow then to lose their sufficiency in order to the same effect when they were strengthened by so great an Authority as that of the sacred writers was How little in this is there of a sober soul As if the matter of Tradition was written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to confirm the authority of delivering it by orall Tradition Doth it not appear in Eccles History that the matter of the New Testament was written that it might be more certain and firm in the minds of men It seems then that the looser way by Tradition was not so sure and standing litera scripta manet Secondly If there be so great an Authority of the sacred writers surely we may make more use of what they wrote to confirm Traditions Adeone pudorem cum pudicitia perdiderunt as he said that the Authority of the sacred writers should be imployed as it were onely to serve Tradition Thirdly The Authority of the sacred Writers did rather confirm the truth of them than the use for why were they written if Traditions were necessary after they were written as such Therefore fourthly He concludes but sufficiency of them in order to the effect but this is not effectual to his purpose If he did conclude necessity of them after the writing this would be somewhat but then there would be more in the conclusion than is in the premises and yet surely all were nothing to the state of the question because we make no question of such Traditions Again he pleadeth losse of the Canon upon which he thinks Tradition should revive Ans That we have spoken of sufficiently before that the supposal doth not inferre insufficiency of the Canon and therefore doth not inferre necessity of Traditional matter beside what is written And also is there yet notwithstanding the losse of some part of Scripture enough remaining to confirm Traditions yes they will say Then God it seems hath taken more care for Traditions than Salvation there is enough for Traditions yet in Scripture not for Salvation Well but again there is enough in Scripture to confirm all Traditions is there not If there be then there is enough for Salvation or else there was not enough in Traditions Because they will say Scripture hath confirmed all Traditions to the Jew namely And then if there was enough to the Jew for Salvation in the Old Testament which was adaequate to Tradition then much more have we enough for Salvation by the New Testament and therefore is there no need of any Tradition beside the Canon Then he returns to an enarration of the use of Traditions even after writing which is of no use to them but to us because here he produceth several Texts for Traditions in the same notion as 2. Thes 2. Gal. 1.8 Tim. 2.2 2. and herein he prevaricates in his own cause For if these Texts be meant of such Traditions which were afterwards written in the matter of them they are so understood as we would have them to be understood and they are not pertinent to the question about Traditions beside Scripture in the matter of them Secondly Whereas he speaks that these
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
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
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
Church all he saies is nothing against so much use of it as I made For I do not argue so because there are such Ebraisms therefore this is to be so expounded we say it follows not as to an actual necessity of such an interpretation No but thus it will follow there are such Hebrew formes of prefacing therefore this may be so interpreted Now the possibility of such an exposition is sufficient to my purpose For possibility of the Contrary stops the mouth of infallibility If this or that be infallible it is not possible to be any other way but the sense may be otherwise therefore this is not the infallible sense so we agree with Dr. Taylor whom he quotes because the Doctor may deny the argumentation as quoad esse we intend it sufficiently quoad posse It may be otherwise expounded than they say therefore cannot we hereby infallibly know this infallibility of the Church Suppose the Church were infallible yet if we did not infallibly know so much we cannot make the Church our ground of Faith Nor could there be any consistence of their implicit Faith if they did not know infallibly that whatsoever the Church propounds is infallible And an exception against this interpretation is that it is new unheard of to all Antiquity and unto all men unto this age Ans This exception would have come better from some other since my adversary had no minde to answer me to some Authority of the Antient. It were worth the while to quit the Criticism upon condition they would hold to antiquity But whose saying was that Omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic And yet neither is this a sufficient answer unless the consent of the Fathers could make a conclusion to be of faith So then as the Florentine said of vertue that the shew of it is profitable but the practice not so also may it be said of the Italians that the shew of antiquity is of use to them but the thing not but also it will be too hard for every one of them to prove a negative neither were many of the Fathers Learned in the Hebrew tongue He goes on whether this infallibility be equall to that of the Apostles or not maketh not to our purpose Ans Surely infallibility never took any degrees with their Doctours It is not receptive of magis minus therefore if he asserts not an equall infallibility he asserts none less in infallibility is less then infallibility So then their Church now is not such as to rely upon equally to the Authority of the Apostles therefore it must be subordinate to Apostolical authority which indeed was in effect confessed before in that he granted that the Church was regula regulata And this is as much as the cause is worth He saies I note him in a Parenthesis for a French Catholicke for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a Council Ans No. He or his scribe is much mistaken I asked him whether he had a minde to the opinion of the French Catholick because he in one place spake of the infallible assistance of the Church without any mention of the Pope Now if he did on purpose leave out the Pope in his account of infallibility then he is like to be a French Catholick And although all Romane Catholicks allow infallibility to a Pope defining with a Council cumulative yet all Roman Catholicks do not allow infallibility to the Pope only then when he defines with a Council As some Catholicks do allow full Authority to a Council without a Pope so some Catholicks allow infallible Authority to a Pope without a Council And this is more then I needed to have said to him that sales in this paragraph so little to me Yet he will charge me with charging him with an opinion which brings him within perill of blasphemy His opinion was this God gives as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Council as he gave to him who did deliver his word in Scripture My reason was this for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as infallibly by his Church as in his word He denies the inference I maintain the charge more pressely thus He that inferres no need of Scripture comes within perill of blasphemie He that saies such words as before infers no need of Scripture Therefore To the major in effect he hath said nothing his discourse is bent against the matter of the minor and he would deny it by severall instances which come not up to the case in hand First because he speaks infallibly by the Church of the Law of nature for two thousand yeares And why more blasphemy now To this in the matter of it we have spoken before As applied here we shall answer to it now First he did not then speak infallibly by his Church if the termes by his Church be meant reduplicatively to whatsoever was said by his Church if it be understood thus that whatsoever truth was proposed by God was proposed by the Church it may be more easily granted In the former sense the reason were good if it were true in the latter it may be supposed true yet it is not sufficient to his use who urgeth that nothing is proposed by the Church but that which is true and from God Yea 2. it cannot be absolutly granted in the second sense if we take the Church to have spoken from God in any way of a Council for much truth of what was proposed came to some of them by way of prophecy 3. The termes God speak infallibly by his Church may relate more strictly to the Agent or to the Instrument God spake infallibly whatsoever he spake by them but God did not speak infallibly by them whatsoever they said Or thus the words are true hypothetically if God spake he spake infallibly by them for he cannot speak otherwise but that whatsoever they said was spoken to them infallibly by God is a question Yea 4. Will they think that there is as much reason for infallible speaking by the Church when the Scripture Canon is compleated as when there was none As to Gods speaking by Moses we have spoken to it lastly As to Gods speaking to some Gentiles by the Church that was not ordinary and therefore it fits not our case neither can they prove that the faith of the Gentiles was not wrought in them by the efficiencie of the spirit of God notwithstanding they had the object of their faith from the Church Neither is it now the same case of teaching us infallibly by the Church as at the time when the Apostles did write because the Christian Church was then to be settled upon the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul speaks and now the building can stand upon that foundation therefore were they extraordinary officers and lasted but for a time And yet if they can prove that their Church-doctrine is no other then that which was
definitions of Councils to be prophetical If they be concluded by discourse then are they fallible if their conclusions be prophetical then by revelation But also these terms to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed are somewhat obscurely proposed Doth he mean it of the sense of Scripture Then where was it formerly revealed if it was clearely revealed what need of a Council to see that which others may see if not how was the sense revealed to them infallibly without a revelation If he meanes what was formerly revealed of Traditions those are beside the word of God and therefore these do not belong to interpreting of Scripture And yet also the Church hath not been so faithful in proposing these as hath been noted before Or doth he mean it of traditive interpretations as they are called but where are these to be found who gives us their number formal and material Let them then take home to their own Tents those that claim full assurance by the spirit in any point We differ from them much first because we doe not pretend any such necessity of ful assurance in every point but the Roman must otherwise what need of an infallible living Judge 2. We pretend not to any praerogative above other Churches as to the knowing the sense of Scripture they do Therefore they urge that of St. Cyprian in allusion to what St. Paul said of the Church of the Romans then for their Church now that perfidiousness cannot have accesse to them not considering besides what hath been said to it before what Nilus comments upon it that the Apostle spoke it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the time that was past not of the future And thirdly we do use meanes towards the finding out the true sense but they must have it by an extraordinary assistance of the Spirit which needs not means if they will have it by infallible assistance in places of controversie Therefore Stapleton thinks rationally that conclusions from discourse cannot be infallble and therefore he will have them to be Prophetical and that will be by revelation This number receives again my reinforcements of my answer to that Text forenamed about the Church the pillar and ground of truth as we ordinarily read it I said it respects the office of the Church according to the rule of the School-man He saies again No it respects the Authority And here he does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he offers no reason why it should be taken in his way For as to that which he urgeth here that it is called the ground of truth it is not solidly objected for the term in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is to keep firm and stable the prop the support and this fairly imports an act ex officio to keep up and uphold the truth He saies also it suits well with his sense to give order to Timothy to carry himself well that the Church might be thought to be infallible so as not to make men believe it improbable that God should assist infallibly such a Church Ans The strength of this Argument himself destroies He is afraid to make good life an Argument of infallibility because he saies it is a pitiful argument since Solomon the Idolaters was assisted with infallibility Well But let them first take my sense with the rule of the School-men and so compare them with his reason which is but a pitiful argument and then judge whether it be not best to take my account upon the place Secondly If badness of life be a prejudice to infallibility then since they cannot deny that some of their chief Pastours have been in life scandalous their infallibility will be scandalized and so cannot be such a way as that fools cannot erre as he urged before Thirdly If this satisfies the multitude that those who are to instruct them are of unblamable life yet this though it be enough ad faciendum populum yet this is not enough to judicious men who look for satisfaction upon solid principles nor can this make Faith unto the people of their infallibility but a better opinion thereof Fourthly As for Bishops and Deacons which he saies should be so qualified by the order of St Paul to and for the credit of such a Church he does not there find in St. Pauls Epistle any Cardinal Bishop or Cardinal Presbyter or Cardinal Deacon in whom the power of infallibility according to them should chieflly consist and therefore that Text doth not positively serve their turn Fiftly I had thought infallibility could have defended it self without the credit of a good life since the grace of gifts and the gift of grace are two things I said moreover what need of such instructions which St. Paul gives to Timothy if the Church were infallible since infallible assistance is immediate He answers here this is a strange consequence the Church is infallible in defending points in a general Council Ergo no man needeth instructions for his private good behaviour Ans But first the instructions he gives to Timothy were such as respected him in his place for the ordering of the Church in rebus fidei in matters of Faith as appears by the summe of Christian Doctrine which he gave him Great is the mystery of godliness c. Secondly By my Adversaries opinion there was no such need of instructions for a private life since it is a pitiful argument to derogate from infallibility by a bad life Thirdly Neither was Timothy I hope in their account a private man After this he hath two questions in the clouds Was it so for the first two thousand yeares before the Scripture was written Ans This is imediately subjoyned to the other before and therefore should seeme to be univocal to it And then we say two things first he supposeth that which is to be proved that the Church in that space was absolutely infallible 2. much less was it infallible in Councils as he now pretends which then were not as he now would have them Therefore from hence it should follow that if the Church be infallible it may be infallible without Councils and this is against him Another question is this Or do we perhaps teach this infallible assistance to be communicated to every one immediately Ans He speakes gravely as antient men were wont with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he notes in his Rhetoriques But why should he think we think he doe For the Church by him might be thought to be infallible though Timothy was not because according to him infallibility is in a representative And though Timothy might have been President of a Council yet was he not to be according to my Adversary personally infallible but as Head of the Council Yea he could not be Head of a Council then for this was according to my adversaries reserved for St. Peter And yet infallible assistance was communicated to every of
against the Arrians But it may be the Arrians did not care for the Authority of a Council and therefore St. Austin waved the Nicene Council Yea Then how is the Authority of a Council a Catholick remedy and then it seemes the Nicene Fathers determined against them not by their Authority which they cared not for but by the Scripture So then the disteem of that Council of Ariminum was upon respect to the matter of the definitions And so a Council was not in their opinion ipso facto infallible Therefore he procceds in a fallacy if he argues thus it was never by the Fathers no nor by the Church of England numbred amongst the foure first Councils therefore it was rejected because it was not accounted a lawful Council Because it was rejected therefore for this cause doth not follow because the genus doth contein potentially more species It was refused upon dislike of the matter it seemes as before And as for the reason why it was not lawful he toucheth not here and it was cashiered before He goes on and you might as well thinke that I might prevaile against you by only citing the Council of Trent c. Ans surely the Council of Ariminum in all respects considerable was as hopeful towards infallibility as the Council of Trent it may be more by a a greater number of Bishops and this with my adversary should have borne some weight who should think that multitude of Counsellours is halfe an argument of truth because he would not place infallibility in a singular person as the Jesuit but in a Council with the Pope And if he saies that there was wanting in the Council of Ariminum the presence or consent of the Bishop of Rome we can easily answer that he then had but a single suffrage and there were some hundreds of Bishops more in the Council of Ariminum then were at the Council of Trent Yea also some Decrees of the Council of Trent proceeded without the Pope's confirmation as before But I think they are both alike the Council of Ariminum and the Council of Trent in being deceived Only I think that St. Austin had less to say against the illegality of the Council of Ariminum then we have to say against the Council of Trent And therefore we may follow St. Austin and if he appealed from the Council of Ariminum to Scripture we may as well appeal from that of Trent if they would urge it He saies St. Austin in vaine had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it Ans Me thinkes if I may say so this is not very judiciously spoken because if Maximinus urged the Council of Ariminum he was bound by equall law to be dealt with by the Nicene Council If Maximinus had not urged the Council of Ariminum it had seemed that the Arrian had not a perswasion that this Controversie should be otherwise handled then by Scripture And if he were well furnished with other arguments out of Scripture admitted by him as he it seemes supposeth that he might be what need then of the infallibility of the Church in Councils And it seemes it is the shorter way and more expedite against Hereticks by Scripture as he confesseth in the words following that St. Austin intended by them only at that time to overthrow him and not to medle with a long contention fit to fill a book alone aboue the validity of the Council of Nice and invalidity of that of Ariminum Put then these things together St. Austin it seemes might be sufficiently furnished with arguments out of Scripture against the Arrian he might by them only overthrow him it is a voluminous work to prove the legality of one Council and the illegality of another the Arrian scoffed at the Council of Nice therefore the convenient and easie way of proceeding with and against Hereticks is by Scripture not by the Authority of the Church And this interpretative is the yeilding of the cause And yet if they will yet think Councils as such to be infallible let them think upon that Canon of Nice declaring equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria to Rome and let them think of the Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Constantinople that the Bishop of Constantinople should be equal in his limits to the Bishop of Rome The Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Nestorius that Peter and Iohn were of equal dignity Let them therefore consider well what they have to do for if Councils be not infallible they are in an errour if Councils be infallible they are not because they have declared against them Let them therefore stand on fall by Scripture Let them try it so as St. Austin did N. 29. His discourse herein is fully put into this form all errours in or against things necessary are plainely determined by Scripture This infallibility of the Church is not plainly determined against by Scripture therefore But therefore what That this is no errour Nay that is not rightly concluded but that it is not an errour in things necessary All errours are not in things necessary Therefore if it concludes as it should it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for it is enough to us that it be an errour suppose it were not an errour in things necessary If it concludes that therefore it is no errour it concludes falsly 2. Though the proposition be our doctrine the assumption supposeth that which is not necessary to be granted by us that this infallibility of the Church is an errour in things necessary we do not deny it to be so but we are not by any arguments constrained to say so For though we should not hold it an errour in necessaries yet is it necessary to reject it as an errour knowing it to be so And 3. We say to the assumption that it is sufficiently enough determined against by Scripture namely as necessary to be in the Church because in the Scripture sufficiency to salvation is asserted without it as before And 4. The affirmative should have been proved by them who assert it not the negative to be proved by us And as towards his proof of the assumption that the Scripture is not so clear against this as for this we have nothing to say because he hath nothing to prove it Scaurus nega◠it beggs And we can say better we have proved the contrary N. 29. Here he resumes a Text for them St. Matthew 28. vlt. I made answer to it before that it doth not extend equall assistance to all ages of the Church He now urgeth me to shew a Text wherein the assistance which was infallible in the first age should not be for the Second or Third age he saies to me against your reasons we have our reasons Ans He is here wanting in two offices first in proving that that Text doth extend equal assistance to all ages of the Church for which the respondent is to waite with his
This manner of speech might serve us against their infallibility but no speech serves infallibility but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And all those testimonies were given to the Iewes as ill as they were disposed Ans he seemes to mistake what I said formerly about indisposition to receive infallibility For I spoke of it in order to those who should receive the gift of it for the Church and he now seems to speake of it in order to the people But 2. Suppose there were as good a disposition the possibility hereof cannot conclude the same necessity of the same assistance and some of their men are named by some of ours for denying any such disposition towards such a measure of the spirit as formerly was given That the Scripture hath still the same certainty he saies categorically is apparently false speaking as you speake in order to assure us c. Ans All his reasons are invalid For as for the first that I confess some books of Scripture were formerly not acknowledged by all which now are received this is of no weight because it is sufficient to my discourse that they have still the same certainty from the time of their general reception And 2. They have in themselves allwaies the same credibility as well as his Traditions as he hath noted before And that many and a good many books of Scripture are quite lost is first in those termes at least a supposition Whether any be lost is yet work for Tishbi specially whether many much more whether a good many but it is obvious to a Romanist that denies the Scripture to be sufficient to find it imperfect in the matter In ingenuity he should have said nothing herein lest he should be interpreted for his own ends As the Socinian who denies Christs satisfaction to prove his opinion denies Christ's Divinity that so the satisfaction should not be sufficient so the Romanist lest the Scripture should be thought to be a sufficient rule saies a good part of it is lost Thus with their honesty they have lost their modesty Secondly let them again consider how much prejudice comes to their Church which they say is the depositary of Christian Doctrine upon the loss of a good many books of Scripture Thirdly yet dato non concesso suppose so yet that which doth remain is surely as sufficient as the old Scripture without all the new Fourthly my words do not engage me in this debate because they are of a capacity to be understood of that Scripture which doth remain Fifthly If any be lost me thinks as the Sibills books the rest should bear a better price And as to his other exceptions about the sense of Scripture about the Sacrament of the Eucharist or of Baptism whether to Infants or to be a Priest or a Bishop was to have power to sacrifice or absolve or not we say first that we have said enough already And we say that we need not say any more in these points till they make good these postulates First whether the exact knowledge of these points be necessary to Salvation Secondly whether if not they can yet prove an infallible Judge in all points of controversie appointed to us by God And as to the last they are first to prove a real sacrifice in the time of the Gospel otherwise there will be no object for a special act of a Priest as such And absolution simply we deny not their absolution to be necessary to salvation and that it can make attrition to be as good as contrition are tasks for them to prove who affirm them And as for that he saies that then they had the Apostles themselves or the known Disciples of the Apostles to tell them the meaning of those words He does not well consider what he saies if they gave the sense of those places which are obscure where are these interpretations why have we not a tradition of them if not they say nothing if so they must derogate from the Church's fidelity because it hath justly communicated and handed to us traditions of other matters then are written and not the sense of those Texts which are written 2. We are yet entirely able to hold the buckler in the defence of our position that there is no such need of an infallible exposition of those Texts which contain points necessary for faith or practice The water where the lambe might wade was clear enough then and had been yet clear enough had not the great Fisher troubled the waters for better fishing If the point of the diall be not fixed they may vary the shadow but the sun keeps it regular motion So if their gnomon be loose they may make the time to go for them but the sun of righteousnes Jesus Christ the same yesterday and to day and for ever as the author to the Hebrews speaks doth in an uniforme and regular course shine in the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ by the twelve Apostles is equally set for all times only the Roman makes the variation who would have the Scripture follow the Church and not the Church the Scripture We need not then yet their Oedipus who hath a foot so great that he must wear a slipper The following words in this section are somewhat cloudy and they do need a clue to shew us their right connexion His drift seems in them to be this to make me destroy my self by two positions first that the Church is secure from damnative errour though not from all simple errour the second this Heresie consisted in opposition to clear Scripture Ans One would have thought that a bad conclusion could not lawfully be begotten of these two positions since specially the second is such as was antiently held by those who do understand distinctly points of divinity And also I had thought once that he had granted the former though now pro re naâ—a he doth think otherwise I am sure he had more reason to stand to it then to abide the perill of the negative Well but what from hence Whence all those must needs be Hereticks who opposed clear Scripture Therefore all those who hold those prime points in which you and we differ with us against you were hereticks for they held these points which you say are against clear Scripture Ans The Church is considerable in the quantity of it so it is universal or particular it is considerable in the quality invisible or visible the Church invisible is distributively secure from all damnative errour the universal visible may be secure from all damnative errour This we say still But by what engine is this drawen into his conclusion which he saies should proceed partly from this position But 2. What if we grant all that those who have been with them against us in the points of difference were Hereticks it is but like for like for they familiarly give us no other name then Hereticks And I think we shall do very few Learned and sober men any harme
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
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
by his word Sir I pray why is it more blasphemy to say that God speaketh by Christs Church who spoke infallibly by the Church of the law of Nature for two thousand yeares see here Numb 32. And when he then began to speak by Moses and the Scripture to the Jewes he still by his Church spoke to the faithful among the Gentiles and the Jewes might have grounded their faith on that voice for two thousand yeares more And when the writers of the former parts of the new Testament did write what they writ and when St. Paul did write what he writ God did infallibly teach all by the Church and yet these writers thought Scriptures necessary but not necessary for all the ends for which you may think them necessary Again what a slender proofe is this to ground a charge of blasphemy upon so vast a multitude as adhere to the Roman Church There is no need of Scripture if God speaketh by his Church to infallibility Did not God speak to infallibility by the Scriptures teaching that Jesus was the Messias Was it therefore meer blasphemy to account St. John Baptist sent by God to teach the same with infallible assurance Was it therefore neer blasphemy to think that voice was infallible by which God the Father testified the same from Heaven Was it therefore neer blasphemy to account the testimony of miracles ordained to testifie the same thing infallible though Christ calleth it testimonium majus Joanne Joan. 5 Or rather is it not neer blasphemy to say all these testimonies besides Scripture are needless Do you not see that after all the testimonies of God by the Scripture and by the Church that still millions do not believe Why is then one of these testimonies superfluous The Church is not more Enthusiastical now then she was for 4. thousand years before she had all the promises which Christ made her of assistance which should be at least as speciall and full as she ever had before Before she delivered only what she had received by Tradition Now she delivereth what she received by Tradition and by Scripture in interpreting of which according to that 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 If others claimful assurance by the Spirit in any point let them shew as good promises made to them in particular as are made to the Church and we shalt never account these false Enthusiasts This infallible assistance being promised to the Church by God cānot be voted frō her by the multitude of mis-believers who oppose her tho you set thē all loos to vote against her 25 After all you will have St. Paul call the Church the Pillar and ground of truth with an intention only to set forth the office and not with an intention to set forth the authority of the Church Sir how can you know St. Paul intention but by his words And sure I am that no word could in breif more fully set forth her infallible authority then by declaring her to be the pillar it selfe and the ground of truth When he useth such words as declare this as sufficiently as need to be how know you that he intended not to declare this sufficiently I ask also in any mans apprehension what office of the Church is signified by calling her the ground of truths In which words an assuredly grounded authority will presently appear to be signified O but you know his intention was to signifie the office only of the Church and not her Authority because he meant here to instruct Timothy how to carry himselfe in the Church of God and to this purpose it had been impertinent to speak of her Authority as you think I think it was very pertinent to speak of it even to this purpose For is it not fit that in a Church which is to be held for the publick Oracle of the world the cheif Pastors of this Church especially those who were to be first of all made cheife Pastors should behave themselves so as not to make men believe it improbable that God should assist infallibly such a Church How much do not your multitude only but your greatest Doctors think themselves to say against the infallibility promised to such a Church as ours is in which they see sometimes scandalous Popes scandalous Cardinals scandalous Bishops c. Which though it be a pittiful argument because scandalous men and Solomon the Idolater have been assisted with an infallibility to be Writers of Scripture it selfe yet it is an argument which troubleth weak soules And therefore to take away such scandals it is very convenient that Bishops especially those who were first of all preferred to that office should be blameless continent vigilant sober of good behaviour and that they should have a good report even from the enemies of the Church Also that the Deacons should be grave not double tongued not given to much Wine or covetous These and such like precepts as these were much to the purpose and as so were here given by St. Paul to maintain the credit of such a Church as might seem to all fit to be accounted the Oracle of the World The Pillar and ground of Truth 59 Let us heare how you argue here If the infallibility of the Church were here affirmed then Timothy needed not 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 so you A strange Consequence The Church is infallible in defining points in a general Councel Ergo no man needeth instructions for his private good behaviour Was it so for the first two thousand yeares before the Scripture was written Or do we perhaps teach this infallible assistance to be communicated to every one immediatly And how is it true that the assistance which is immediate to the Church assembled in a full Council includes no time for the inspiration nor no means for the instruction Do you think that as soon as all are assembled they are presently all or the greater part to define all things as fast as they are proposed was it so when the Apostles and the Elders of the Church were assembled together in the first Councel though this issued forth their decree with this preface It seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and us Was there no time required for this short Decree No means used before it was made Read those words The Apostles and the Elders coming together to consider of the matter And when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said There followeth his speech Then St. James made an other speech To what purpose all these speeches and these made after former much disputing if your doctrine be true that neither time nor use of any be to proceed
so they must at length rest in our Principles In this num beside somewhat in the beginning N. 48. answered before he would very fain repair the credit of the vulgar Latin which I had broken by an instance of Gen. 3.15 where it reads ipsa for ipsum referring to the Mother what belongs to the Son To this he saies It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be translated ipsum How know you the Church followed the false Hebrew copie Satis caute Some copies Not all May be Not are Most exactly be translated not some most exact copies Well Are not these copies the greater number And indeed are they not the most exact yea can they truly be translated otherwise and how know they that their Church followed the true Hebrew copie If it did not follow it infallibly or if they cannot know infallibly that it did follow it infallibly infallibly they are undone because they are upon terms of an infallible faith in an infallible Church Therefore though we can shake their foundation by our question they cannot settle their foundation by their question And yet we have another question He asks again How many most grave and most antient Fathers have also read ipsa Surely he does well to ask how many because he does not know how few Their names may they not be written in a nut shel and Bellarmin upon the place hath not many for it And some of them surely not most grave and also most ancient Fathers But as for St. Austin Bellarmin might as well or better have left him out of the Catalogue For though he renders it ipsa in his 11. de Gen. ad literam c. 36. and in another place yet he doth not expound it as they of the Virgin for he makes it to be mystically understood Significatur semine diaboli perversa semine autem mulieris fructus boni operis illa observat caput ejus ut eum in ipso initio malae suasionis excludat He might also have omitted St. Ambrose in his 2. b. de fuga saeculi cap. 7. for there he interprets it morally not referring it to the Virgin And both of them also differ from the Hebrew and their vulgar in the other words and follow the Septuagint For they translate it ipsa servabit caput tuum which doth not agree with the Hebrew with which the vulgar in this doth agree But Bellarmine also nameth St. Chrysostom in his 17. homily upon Gen. But then they must have some other edition of him if they will make use of his testimony for them For in three places of this homily he renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which he would think it may be to be for this use is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And not her alone the woman but I will make her seed to be a perpetual enemy to thy seed Yet upon this he doth immediately subjoyne the text as before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Bellarmin doth not yet bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed all they can do is much too little to cure this breach For S. Ierom is more considerable in this criticism than all the Fathers named And he saies melius in Hebraeo ipse conteret caput tuum Nay Bellarmin in the place quoted by him saith he had seen one copy he speaks of no more as he would surely if he had could and yet doth not tell us where So that to speak at least de communi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this reading ipsa is not agreeable to the Hebrew copies Nay Bellarmin doth sweat at it and therefore saies some copies of the vulgar Latin do interpret it ipse in the former Chap. And this makes a new difficulty on their part to reconcile the contrariety to the infallibility of the Church in both The Church was deceived in one and where then is their infallibility they speak of This is their modesty then against the gender in the Hebrew against the Samaritan Syriack Arabick translations which referre it to the seed against all Hebrew copies which Bellarmin had seen but one against some of their own copies of the vulgar Latin to make that Scripture for the Creature which belongs to the Son of God And also whether the Fathers most grave and most antient are for their interpretation we have examined and therefore he needed not be so plain as to say it was a loud lie of Chemnitius to say the contrary And will they say so to Lucas Brugensis who saies as much as Chemnitius in this point almost all the Fathers do read ipse as is noted Let me then say it would become them here to give glory to Christ immediately and to confess this fault And yet neither doth he competently answer to the question made to him why the Greek was not made infallibly the Church as well as the Latin That we have his declaration that the Latin vulgar is authentique and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners this he saies but this will not serve as may appear thus A translation of that which is not authentique cannot be authentique now let them determine whether it was made authentique or not If not made authentique being a translation as they say then how can the Latin be so declared an authentique translation for then the Church must have vim operativam too not onely declaratory and the effect shall exceed the material cause Or if it was declared authentique what of an infallible translation 2. Whereas he saies therefore it is not deficient in any point necessarie to faith and manners To wit the Latin translation we take notice of it that these words have a sense in them intended for their use namely not to be understood absolutely as if there were no error at all therein but restrictively specificatively no such errour but that it may be sufficient to direct us in faith and manners So then when he hath made use of his own words for his own turne we will make use of them for our purpose and we will not squeese them neither The first corollarie then from these words of his is this that he dares not stand to an absolute infallibilitie of the Church in every point whatsoever and therefore by Mr. Knott's argument he must abate of his former postulate of it's being the ground and cause of faith 2. Thus much we may as well or better say for our translation that it is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners 3. It semes then salvation is not in danger by some errours otherwise their translation should be deficent in points necessarie to faith and manners and therefore we need not upon danger of salvation have an infallible Judge to decide all points emergent 4. Things necessarie to faith and manners are sufficiently set down in scripture for otherwise the Latin translation must be deficient or else it must have more then the