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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
also makes number it comes in in form of a transition and so let it pass N. 39. In this he begins to resume his discourse of such particulars which are necessary to Salvation and yet not plainly set down in Scripture And the first instance is about the necessity of the not working upon the Sunday without any necessity But to this and to the other instances of this kind it would be sufficient again to settle the state of the question and it is thus whether any thing necessary to salvation by necessity of mean without the knowledge and belief whereof in points of Faith or without the knowledge and practise of in things of action we cannot come to salvation is not with sufficient plainness set down in Scripture This is the state of the question which very few if any of his instances come near to there may be as errors so sinnes which are not clearly forbidden in Scripture and therefore the ignorance of them will not damne where there is general repentance And to hold and do any of these against our belief of the Truth therein or duty is acknowledged to be damnative without particular repentance but this comes not up to the question whether there is no possibility of salvation without the belief of the truths and the practise of the duties for so neither of us could be saved unless there be any of us who knows all truths reduplicatively and do all duties also And this might have satisfied my Adversaries for this and other examples if it had became men pretending infalibility to receive any satisfaction but in victory But in particular You dare not say that he shall be saved who doth weekly work and resolveth to work upon the Sunday without any necessity And what then First let it be returned home they dare not say that he shall be saved who resolves to be absent from high Mass without necessity The point betwixt us is whether necessarily he must be damned who doth work upon the Sunday not knowing whether it be such a sin when they determine this then we may determine by Scripture which part is to be held whether it is destructive of Salvation or not But Secondly as to the necessity towards Salvation the intimations of honour which are put upon the first day of the week and the practise of the Apostles is sufficient to incline our practise on the safer hand to wit in the Negative and if in contempt hereunto any should resolve to work without necessity his case would be more dangerous but the question concerns not sins in subjecto with all the circumstances but in specie Thirdly as to the clear Text of the fourth Commandement the determination of the day to the Jew was positive and Ceremonial and therefore with other Jewish Ceremonies never to cease or if that also was morall why do we not heare of it by their infallibility and practise And if this had been intended for a case reserved to make work for the authority of the Church why was it not absolutely determined in some general Council The Laodicean Council give not absolute order but under a condition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly Therefore to conclude this Number whereas he saies I bring my own Discourses in stead of clear Texts let him bring either clear Text or clear discourse for these two Propositions 1. That this Point is absolutely necessary to be known And 2. That it is not clearly set down in Scripture then we shall leave him in the field for this time but if he will not answer to my Discourses because they are fallible he gives me leave to think more and to say no more to his Discourses upon the same account N. 40. In this Number he seems to be courteous in receiving some satisfaction to my Answer about things strangled But it may be he thought himself bound to it upon the general supposition of the Romanist that the Scripture was written but for particular occasions and to particular persons and therefore that Precept of the Apostles in the 15 of the Acts concerning the case should not upon their intention be alwaies binding And yet I shall have nothing from him but I must pay for it for he says Though we seek for Texts and not Reasons But reason upon Principles of Scripture binds by vertue of the Principles If not how many of their Superstructions must they discount But let them give us Texts or Reasons and until they do so we may have done with them N. 41. Shall we have either in the next Whether the King be Head of the Church This hath been sufficiently spoken to before what is new I shall touch upon He saies This controversie must highly import that all the Members may have an assured knowledge of the Head by whom they are to be governed To this we answer Whatsoever is necessary in our sense highly imports but whatsoever highly imports is not necessary in our sense Therefore whereas he says afterwards Is not this a necessary point we deny it necessary in our sense for then God should tie salvation to accidentals It could not be necessary when and where there is no King and this is to be numbred amongst accidentals but those things which are absolutely necessary do not vary their nature upon contingencies But then as to the other Proposition which it is necessary for them to prove namely that this is not clearly enough delivered in Scripture he says reflecting upon our difference from our selves as he supposeth this point was before evident Scripture now it is no longer evident Scripture To this he brings in my Answer Your Answer is first What is infallibly decided by Scripture will ever be so although we do not alwaies finde it To this he returns If you mean what is infallibly decided by Scripture evident is not alwaies to be found it is manifestly false c. Answ If it be decided infallibly by Scripture evident in terms that which he says is true but who holds this point so evidently decided If he means it infallibly decided by evident Scripture in way of consequence that which he says is manifestly false is pertinent but manifestly false For how then could some Divines in the Trent Council assert many things to be decided by Principles of Scripture which the adverse party there could not finde And why do they hold that the Determinations of Councils are Prophetical that so they may be infallible if what is discoursed out of Principles could alwaies appear to all to be infallible And why doth Bellarmin say in his 1. b. de Baptismo cap. 9. ad lit B. that the Baptism of Infants satis apertè colligitur ex Scripturis ut supra ostendimus the Baptism of Infants is clearly enough gathered out of Scriptures as we have shewed before although if my Adversaries were upon the Jury for this controversie they would bring in an Ignoramus Then he comes to my second Answer You adde
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
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than an implicit explication of an Affirmative by a Negative The immutable God can preserve mutable creatures from actual mutation ibid. thereby implying that the Immutable cannot communicate his incommunicable Attribute of Immutability to any creature even because he cannot possibly perfect a creature into Himself But from actual mutation he can preserve any Creature as well an Ignorant single man as a whole Church Catholick Thus by endeavouring to uphold Mr. Cressy does throughly destroy his Doctrine All he saith coming to this That however God only is undeceivable yet he is able to preserve his deceivable creatures from being actually deceiv'd Sed quid hoc ad Iphicli Boves The Question is not Whether God can preserve a Church from being actually in error for so he can and often does particular Members of his Church But whether de facto he hath granted an Inerrability or an Impossibility of erring unto that which they call the Roman Catholick Church Not whether the Church can be actually false in her opinions but whether or no she is Infallible or exempted by God from the passive power of giving false Judgement in points of Faith Will Mr. Cressy so confound an Adjective in Bilis with a participle derived from the passive preterperfect Tense as either to argue à non actu ad non potentiam or else to pass over from the one unto the other Will he argue that Adam before his fall was Impeccable because he yet was preserved from actual sin or that the Church was Infallible in the Apostles own Times because she was not erroneous untill she was He cannot sure be so destitute either of Logick or Grammar skill I think it rather his skill to dissemble both as finding no other way to dispute a whole Chapter for such a Doctrine unless he either begg's or forsakes the Question But now to give him more Advantage than he is mindfull to give himself when he allows so great a privilege to the present Governours of the Church in every Age whom he will have to be the living and speaking Judges to whom without contradiction all particular Churches as well as persons Ubi supra p. 97. must meekly yield up their Assent Let us allow it to be his meaning not that These are undeceivable but that God doth still preserve them from being actually deceiv'd Was not Pope Hildebrand himself the supreme speaking Judge when yet the * Imperial Statut. apud Goldast Tom. 1. p. 74. Council at Wormes did set him out as a Brand of Hell Conc. Constantien A. D. 1414. Seff 11. Edit Bin. To. 7. 1036. Notoriè criminosus de homicidio veneficio pertinâ—x Haereticus Simoniacus contra Articulum de Resurrectione mortuorum dogmatizavit Et paulò superius cum Uxore fratris sui cum sanctis moniatibus Incestum commisit p. 1035. Was not John the 23. the supreme speaking Judge of Mr Cressy's then present visible Church when yet he openly deny'd the Immortality of the soul and for That with other crimes was condemn'd by the Council then held at Constance Were not John the 22. and Anastasius the 2. the supreme speaking Judges in their several Times who yet were both stigmatiz'd for the Crime of Heresie Let Mr Cressy now speak like an honest man Were such superiours as these then living and speaking to conclude all controversies to Interpret Scripture and the Fathers to put to silence all particular Churches to subdue mens mindes to an Assent and this under the penalty of their being cut off from the body of Christ Let him read his own dictates p. 97. It will but little mend the matter to say The Pope is but one and that He spake of All Superiours Because besides that they may All have their Byasses and Errors as well as He in case they are all consulted with as they never are 'T is very evident that the Pope like the Sun among the Starres is more than All in all Cases The greatest part of those Councils which they are pleas'd to call General have been indeed little better than the meer properties of their Popes which that I may not seem to say as one that loves to speak sharply but rather as compell'd by their own Accompts of them I shall here give an Instance in one or two In the last Lateran Council under Julius the 2. A brief Accompt of the last Lateran Council and Leo the 10. The Holy Scriptures at the first Session are humbly laid down at his Holinesses Feet And an Oath being administred are formally toucht by the Officials The Pope in that Session is call'd The Prince of all the world and in the next The Priest and King to be adored by all the People as being most like to God Himself Accordingly in the 3d The Kingdom of France by Pope Julius is subjected to an Interdict and the Mart held at Lyons transferr'd to Geneva The pragmatick Sanction is rescinded in the fourth for the improving of the Trade of Ecclesiastical Hucksters the buying and selling of Church-preferments The Pope is asserted as Gods Lieutenant upon Earth though not of equal merits A very signal Condescension and to be kept in everlasting Remembrance God is meekly acknowledg'd to be superiour to the Pope In the fifth Session Julius dies Ne sleveris Fiâ—ia Sion ut Ep scoâ—â—us Mâ—d usiensis affatur Papam qâ—ia Ecce veâ—â—t Leo de Tribu Juda Radix David â—cce Tibi suscitavit Deus Salvatorem c. Te Leo Bâ—atissime Salvatorem expectamus Te Liberatorem vâ—nturum speravimus Concil Lateran ult Sess 6. Bin. To. 9 p. 74. another great Condescension And Leo his Successor is saluted as no less than the Lion of the Tribe of Judah the Root of David the Saviour and Deliverer that was to come A pretty clinch but a blasphemous complement and unworthy a Bishop's mouth In the eighth and ninth Sessions This Lion Roars first against them that shall violate his Decrees in the present Council to whom he threatens such a Sentence of Excommunication as none but Himself could absolve them from Next against the Emperour Kings and Princes whom he chargeth not to hinder such as were coming to the Council under the penalty of incurring God's Displeasure and his own In the last of those two Sessions Divinae Maj statis tuae conspectus vutilanti cujus fulgore imbecilles oculi mei caligant c. Et paulo post In Te uno legitimo Christi Dei Vicario pâ—opheticum illud debuerit â—uâ—sus impleri Adorabunt cum omnes Reges Terrae omnes Gentes servient ci Ibid. Sess 9. p. 114 116. Antonius Puccius tells Leo how his Eyes are darkned by the rutilant Brightness of his Divine Majesty in him alone as the Vicar of God and of Christ That saying of the Prophet ought again to have its completion All the Kings of the Earth shall come and worship All the Nations under Heaven shall do him
Infallibility pretended were either proved or quitted we might rejoyce in more hope of Peace to Christendome If it were sufficiently proved we should presently yeild if it were quitted they might possibly yield And I would the Pope would turn Patriarch again but untill it be Proved and thank God for the Nicene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and no more To my Adversary if I have shewed my self at all uncivil I am very sory for it and what unhandsome Reflexions there are made by him if any upon me I put up upon good account If the pen at any time makes a disorderly sally out unto a perstriction of the person it is a Liberty which I had rather give than take And his Papers are as well and as whole printed as mine and I am glad that they are printed in the same character which is not usual And if I have made in mine any blots as very likely I have about Isidor Clarius or any other Author or Matter I am very ready to acknowledge it it being not in my way to pretend to infallibilitie nor my mind to affect the Reputation of him that was denominated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is enough to me to have given any hints to others for better use If I have found any smooth stone out of the Brook of Scripture Let some able Pastour of the Church throw it at that Roman Goliah and let it sink into his Head and let Saint Jerom's Sword cut off not his Head but his Headship My inability yet will doe me this good that it doth strongly prove their Infallibility not to be good which such a Punie of the Church can go near to discompose and ruffle Towards an Epistle this sufficient since I think my self not worthy to give any advice Onely by my experience I may remind thee that it is time for us to knit the vein again of the Spouse of Christ in the breach whereof our Adversaries do so much triumph This Vlysses would have believe it thou canst not serve God more nor the Roman better Scissura domestica turbat Rem populi titubatque foris quod dissidet intus And I wish that by the light of this conflict thou mightst see that the Roman and the Sectarie are both upon the Extremes and that the Church of England as to Religion and Government goes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then Reader since my Adversary hath also appealed unto thee unto thee let him goe As he in his Rhetoriques l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thy servant in Christ our good Master Sh. A Letter to his friend WORTHY SIR I Have with much eagerness and delight run over your solemical discourse in answer to an interpretative kind of Challenge made by a confident but close adversary whose wit I cannot but commend as in hiding his name so in picking out so fit a time for the scattering of his insinuating papers when our so lamentable distractions yeild him so favourable an advantage So have we known ill neighbours take opportunity of their pilfring when the house is on fire So did the crafty Amalekite fall upon the hind most of Israel when they were faint feeble and tired with their travel Although herein he hath made a good amends and merited our thanks in that his bold intimations have drawn you forth into the light and fetcht from you this your abundantly satisfactory Answer for his full Conviction and the settling of unstable minds in this busie Controversie Certainly there is not a greater Imposture in all Rome then in the name and plea of the Church as our Learned Bishop Morton hath long since laid it out or that wins more of weak and injudicious soules For what a short cut is here of all controversies in Religion what a sure-seeming refuge for the soule what a present and sensible Eviction of all gainsayers The Catholike Church cannot erre The Roman Church is the Catholike The Dictates of that Church are as evident as infallible The Scriptures are ambiguous The Church is clear and conspicuous we know where Rome stands In the communion of that onely is salvation Out of that Ark we drown within it is perfect safety May this be made good Who would trouble his heart or his head with any further disquisition of truth Who need to care for any other spiritual priviledge then to be free of Rome O easie security of our Faith O cheap charter of assured Salvation Whiles these plausible impostors goe thus about to flatter their ignorant and credulous Clients into a dangerous if not deadly misbelief putting this broken reed into their hands you have thus seasonably discovered and checked their fraud and cleerly shewn to these simple and mis-taught souls how unsafe it is for them to trust to so crazie and perilous a supportation which must needs in stead of easing wound them I shall therefore hereupon expect much good issue from this your well bestowed labour Why should not this your so convictive discourse work effectually upon an ingenuous adversary to win him to the acknowledgement of so well-manifested a truth and settle those wavering minds which seemed to be a little shaken with so strongly-confident suggestions and prevent the danger of seducement in those poor souls whose simplicity exposeth them to the subtle temptations of misguidance into errour Such blessing of success I wish to your learned and charitable work and to your self who have ever approved your self so well deserving and pious a son of the Church of England some better encouragement then these times have yet afforded either to you or to Higham April 8. 1654. Your unfainedly devoted friend and fellow-labourer in the work of the Lord JOS. HALL B. N. POSITION IT is not sufficient to make one a Catholick in point of faith that he believe the same things which the Catholick Church believeth unless the Catholick Church be also the Ground of his belief for whosoever doth believe any point upon no other Ground but only because it seems to his private Judgment to be contained in Scripture or to be in it self true yea though he should believe in this manner every thing which the Church believeth yet he would not be a Catholick and so may be damned for want of faith And the Reason is because seeing that faith is to believe a thing because God revealeth it and that there is no infallible way without a Miracle whereby God his Revelation cometh to us but onely by the Churches Proposition it followeth that we cannot believe any thing certainly upon the Motive of God his Revelation unless our belief be likewise grounded upon the Churches Proposition Wherefore the faith of a Catholick must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it for all other perswasions of our own discourse are resolved at last into our particular Judgments or else into the Judgments of other particular Men and so cannot breed in us Catholick and divine
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
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
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
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
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
yet will it not 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 unlesse you can prove that whatsoever priviledges were promised to the first Church in the times of the Apostles should in full dimensions be alwayes extended to your Church and your Church onely Therefore your Isidor Clarius doth apply this Text to the time of our Saviour when he did make the Blind to See the Lame to Walk as he sent word to John the Baptist And therefore since it was signally accomplished then we cannot urge the performance of it in that equality in a sense spiritual which also seems to be acknowledged by Saint Hierome upon the place where the opening of the Ears of the Deaf he doth apply to the Scripture Preached and the way he saies to be God Now then as we cannot solidly argue from the promise of pouring out the gifts of the Holy Spirit which was solemnly and subfâ—â—a visibile made good upon the Apostles as â—oâ—hâ— Peter declared that there shall be the like effusion of immediate gifts upon the Church in the following ages which some Sectaries would plead so neither can we rationally conclude from this promise which was as that excellent manner and in the Letter perfected by our Saviour Christ that it shall be continued to any Church iâ— that measure of a spiritual kind If we cannot evince the same perfection in the same kinde surely can we not by our accommodation of sense evince the same perfection in another kind upon the former consideration because it is mystical and that not argumentative 3. This path and this way and this holy way so that fools cannot erre is upon supposition promised to the Church Is it not Well then if it be promised to the Church then the Church is not that way for that way is promised to the Church so that the Church is not absolutely that way but so far as it goeth that way which is as much as was said before and is not yet answered that the Church is regula regulata not regulans Take then the matter thus that way which the Church goes we must goâ—â— The Church goes by the way of Gods-Word revealed and so must we therefore we are not bound to follow the Church with blind obedience which excludes Faith because that includes Knowledge although it be contradistinguished to Science Fourthly If the promise did belong to the Church in all times yet not to any Church of one denomination therefore untill you can prove that your Church is all this makes nothing for you Particular Churches have not those properties which belong to the Universal Church as such And if you make a proof of the Church to be the holy way because the Church is holy how easily is that undone because there is more reason that the Scripture should be the holy way for that is perfectly holy or the Holy Ghost is the Judge because he is essentially holy but neither is the Church perfectly holy here nor essentially holy not in Heaven And besides secondly the Holy Church if you understand it with relation to the Creed as in your former Paper it is to be taken of the Church invisible which as such is on way And thus I have slighted your strong hold as it seems to you for hitherto you do fly very often In your third Number you come to an assertion of the necessity of an Infallible Judge You say that all Christians of whatsoever Religion do agree in this that there must be one Judge of all Controversies and Doubts which either be or can be in Religion So you You speak very largely of your supposition as if it were agreed to by all Christians but you do not consider that you do leave out that which makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the state of the question whether there must be an Infallible Judge on Earth for that is not consented to on all hands by all Religions indeed by none but yours That God either essentially taken or personally the Holy Ghost is the Supreme Universal Infallible Judge and onely in whose Authority we rest and whose word is the Ground of Faith we hold Under him subordinate Judges there are but not Infallible neither is it by your reason sufficiently confirmed that there should be on Earth any Infallible Judge For the defect of such a Judge on Earth doth not leave us free without any fault to follow our own private judgement in holding what we will For first it is impossible for us to hold what we will in our judgements We may possibly though not morally professe what we will although contrary to our judgements as many doe but we cannot assent to what we will because our Understanding is not free to take which part of the opposition it pleaseth by way of Will for it embraceth Truth naturally as it sees it and it cannot give a rational assent without a due conviction and therefore your implicite Faith is false and null Secondly We do not say that we should follow our own judgement of discretion without meanes of regulating our judgement but yet after we have perused the Definitions of Councils and Sentences of the Fathers we cannot resigne up our Assents to their Dictates upon their account but do examine them as the Beraeans did that which Saint Paul said untill we can finde them resolved into the Infallible rule of Holy Scripture For let me ask a Papist according to the renour of your first Paper What doth he believe he answers that which the Church believeth and why doth he believe it because the Church believeth it and why doth the Church believe it because it received it from the first Church through the Sentences of the Fathers or the Determinations of Councils Well but how shall the People know whether this Tradition of Doctrine is truly discerned and faithfully delivered but if so why is he bound to believe the first Church because either they were the Apostles oâ— had it from the Apostles And why doth he believe the Apostles Because they were inspired by the Holy Ghost Well in what they wroâ—e or in what they spoke or both In both Well but how do we know what they spoke We know what they wrote bears witnesse of it self so doth not to us what they spoke so that although they were inspired in whaâ— they spoke yet we know not what they spoke Neither can we be assured by a Divine Faith that what of them was not written is certainly derived And therefore all of Faith must be terminated and determined in that which is written And as towards Controversies we say thirdly that Christ hath sufficiently provided for the Salvation of Man in regard of means of knowledge without an Infallible Judge on Earth of their Controversies because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture and for matters of question we are not in any such danger if we do our endevour according to our condition to finde out Truth and do dispose our selves to Belief as we shall see
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
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
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
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
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
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
be imbrac'd with as infallible an assent as the doctrine of the Prophets and Apost Yea there have bin many miracles wrought to testifie many very many of those points in particular in which we differ frō you As you may see shew'd by Brierly only by looking in his Index 5. miracles but see him particularly T. 2. C. 3 Tr. S. 7. Subdivis And Tr. 1. S. 5. There you shall see how solidly grounded these Miracles are against which you can object nothing which is not objected with equal probabilitie by Heathens against the Miracles of the Prophets and by Jewes against those of the Apostles Tell me then if these two motives though there be yet many others be not as powerful inducements to move us to acknowledge that God hath given his Church infallible authoritie to teach us faithfully which she received from him as were those motives for which the Jewes did prudently believe that the Scripture given them by David by Salomon by Nahum by Amos and others were written with infallible authoritie by them having Commission from God to write what they did write We then believe the Church to have such a Commission with as good security as they acknowledged this Commission in those Scripture writers Whereas the ground upon which you believe Scripture is thought to be foolish and Chimerical by some of your best Writers 34. Yet to shew further how unsecurely the greater part of your Religion did ground their faith I did add this argument that the true Original Scriptures were written in languages not knowne to one among ten thousand if we speake of a perfect knowledge Others must trust the Translations of private men and believe them rather then the Translations used by the Church in general Councils Is it not cleere that the Authority of such Translations is far greater and far more to be judged to agree with the true Original then any of your private Mens Translations You your selfe confesse that Translations are only so far Gods word as they agree with the originals whence I infer that no body in your opinion can believe any point upon the authority of any Translations until he be assured that such a point agreeth with the true Hebrew or true Greek Original How disappointed then be most of your Religion especially your women who so fiercely fly upon us for believing the Church whilest they themselves must either believe nothing for they cannot believe any thing upon the credit of the English Translation until they know how exactly it agreeth with the true Greek or true Hebrew Original which is wholy impossible for them or else they must merely take upon trust the most fallible Translations for the infallible Original and trust rather in this most important point the learning and fair dealing of those private Ministers deeply interessed in this cause then trust the gratest authority upon earth which is a general Council having so strong promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost I intreat you here to see Chapter 4. Numb 9. 35. Again I pray tell me how you learned Ministers who have so full knowledge of these languages as to Translate and upon your own knowledge to judge of true Translations made by others of you it is that I ask how you come to know and know so sufficiently as to ground an infallible assent in your selves and others when your Translations agree with the true Original For you have now confessed that Translations are only so far Gods word as they agree with the Originals And you must mean the true Originals or else you say nothing for agreeing with false or doubtful Originals will not make them Gods undoubted Word Tell me I say it again and again how do you know which be the true and undoubtedly true Originals and upon what secure ground do you know it The true Originals be either Hebrew or Greek As for the Hebrew all must know that the ancient Hebrew Copies were all written without points that is in full substance without Vowels Now they be the Vowels which make or marre the word and sense for a Vowell addeth the soul and the sound to the consonants and maketh them signify most different things For example for a Ball write only b ll to which consonants if you adde an a it is Ball adde an e it is Bell adde an u and it is a Bull So that great confusion must needs follow if the true points that is the true Vowells were not put to the same Consonants Well now again all must know that a good while after the time of Christ and his Apostles the Jewish Rabbies under pretence of avoyding the mistakes which might happen in the lesse skilfull in the Hebrew tongue which then was almost worn out did take the old Hebrew Testament and put the points that is the Vowels unto it so that the old Testament we now use came from these Jewish hands Tell me then how know you infallibly whither these perfidious Jewes had skill and honesty enough to deliver to us their Copies with the true points and Vowells and yet all depends on this The consonants alone will not assure us in these unskilful and so remote ages For the least change in appoint maketh most contrary things to be all one for no Man can tell especially infallibly whether these words an Angel had a b ll in his hand should be read thus an Angel had a Ball in his hand or a Bell or a Bill or a Bull. Put a false Vowel and it is all one To tast cheese and to tost cheese all one to be fatt and to be fitt to increase in Grace and to increase in Grece all one to eat a bitter fig and to eat a better fig. A pot ful of butter and a Pit ful of Batter will be the same Hence you see the small infallibility you have of the possessing the true undoubted Originall Hebrew old Testament As for the new testament Saint Mathewes Gospel was Originally written in Hebrew and that Originall is quite lost Now the other Greek Originalls which we have have a stupendious Variety He who found the word Infallible so unfortunate to him which you obiect to me telleth of his own knowledge a story most unfortunate to you and yours which I have also h eapd by an other way His words are these In my hearing Bishop Usher professed that whereas he had of many yeares before a desire to publish the Testament in Greek with Various Lections and Annotations and for that purpose had used great diligence and spent much money to furnish himself with Manuscripts yet in conclusion he was forced to desist utterly least if he should ingenuously have noted all the several differences of readings which himself had collected the incredible multitude of them almost in every verse should rather have made Men Atheisticall then satisfy them in the true reading of any particular passage An evident signe that the Governours of the Church did not onely rely
to shew that all points necessarie be clearly determined according to truth in Scripture you are put upon a necessitie to say that lesse clear Texts suffice to determine this controversie for you though you stifly maintain that more clear Texts are not able to determine against you By which it is apparent how false that Principle is which forceth you to utter these inconsequent consequences By this also you may see that the Contradiction you would find in my words for saying on the one side these Texts are clear and on the other side that this Controversie the Scripture doth not decide doth arise out of my speaking according to your principles For you on the one side say that other Texts which are manifestly lesse clear are clear enough to end the controversies therefore these which are clearer must needs be clear enough for that end And again you say on the other side by these our Texts clearer then yours this Controversie is not clearlie decided Therefore I must consequentlie say that according to you This Controversie the Scripture doth not decide It is according to your Principles that these Texts must be clear because they be clearer then those which you are forced to affirme clear and again you must say they be not clear for fear you should confess them to decide against you Now if these two places be denied to be clear with a clarity sufficient to put an end to the Controversie then according to my principles scarce any Controversie will ever be decided by any Text. And this is most for my turn to shew the necessity of a living Judge whereas afterwards you take occasion to dispute of this Sacrament you do not do it as it should here have been done to the present purpose to wit by alledging more clear Texts to prove that Christs true body is not really in the Sacrament then I alledge to prove that it was really in it For these Texts I do call These Texts I require Without you give me these more clear Texts you will never give me a satisfactorie answer All other things I wave of until I have these clearer Texts The difference of these two hundred interpretations about these four words This is my Body though they be not owned by you yet they make strongly against you in this respect that they shew the Text of Scripture not to have ended but to have occasioned these endlesse differences And consequently they shew this point not to be clear out of Scripture You in vain are busie about other things which are not to the purpose so to entertain your Reader that he may not mark your omitting the main point which was to shew this great Controversie to be clearly decided on your side by Scripture onely Of my 15th Number 60. I go on still pressing other points the belief of which points your self hold necessarie to salvation and yet you cannot shew them evidently taught in Scripture For you cannot produce an evident Text teaching that God the Father is not begotten God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father onely that the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but proceedeth and that both from the Father and the Son And that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father Your answer to this is most highly unsatisfactorie You say that although the matter of these points be not found in terminis in Scripture yet the sense of them according to equivalence may as well as Transubstantiation To be as clearly set down as Transubstantiation in Scripture is according to your own principles not to be clearly set down at all In your answer you were to shew that these points were clearly set down in Scripture and you answer that they are as clearly set down as a point which is not clearly set down Is this any way satisfactorie Neither is it more satisfactorie if you mean to argue out of our own principles for according to us all points necessarie and this point in particular are not clearly set down in Scripture And to prove this I have laboured all this Chapter So that you neither satisfie according to your own nor our Principles Your second answer is destroyed by your former for whilest in that you professe to hold these Articles and not hold them upon the authoritie of the Church you leave your self no other authoritie upon which you can hold them but onely such Texts of Scripture as are not clear and no more sufficient to ground faith then other places are to ground a belief of Transubstantiation Be such places sufficient 61. For another necessarie point not plainly set down in Scripture I urge Baptisme of children Of my 16th Number which is by no evident Text of Scripture taught us You answer that it is not necessary for the salvation of the children to be baptized And to prove this pernicious doctrine you bring a Text which clearly speaketh onely of men old enough to believe and desire Baptisme For your Text is He that believeth he is then old enough to believe and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not and consequently would positively not be baptized shall be damned This Text you see speaketh nothing of children and whilest it damneth those who would not so much as believe it sheweth it self to speak of those who would not be baptised and these it damneth How doth it then intimate that those who are children and could have onely baptisme in re and not in voto should be saved without Baptisme for which point you bring it and yet of this point it speaketh not at all much lesse doth it speak as clearly as another text speaketh the quite contrary to wit Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven Jo. 3. v. 5. Hear your own Doctor Tayler in his defence of Episcopacy Sect. 19. P. 100. Baptisme of Infants is of ordinary necessitie to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this Rite Rule upon the Tradition of the Apostles And wise men of whom I hope you are one do easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessitie of communicating Infants upon us as we doe of baptizing Infants upon them Therefore a great Master of Geneva in a Book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flie to Apostolical traditional Ordination They that deny this Ordinarie necessitie of baptizing Infants are by the just Anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Heretickes so he This ordinary necessitie of Baptisme to all that ever cried You denie Therefore by the just Anathema of the Catholick Church you are condemned for an Heretick yea you go further then the Pelagian Heresie for they were counted Hereticks See Saint Aust Heresi 88. for saying Although Infants be not baptized they shall possesse an eternal and blessed life though it be out of the Kingdome of God You will admit them
Priest defining in a general Council erred not I wonder you goe about also to justify the Translators proceedings because who think the scope of the sacred writer doth bear it Is not this to give Translators leave together with their Translation to obtrude their glosse and what they imagin the scope should be Is this a sound Translation Master Broughton one of the best skilled in Hebrew and Greek of your Church did according to his great skill give a truer censure of your Translation in his advertisement of corruption to your Bishops saying That their publick Translation of Scriptures into English is such as it perverteth the Text of the old Testament in Eight hundred fourty eight places And that it causeth Millions of Millions to reject the new Testament and to run to eternall flames In what case then are they who take all that this Bible saith for the undoubted word of God When Tindal in the beginning of your Reformation Translated Gods Word into English he did reform it so like one of your great Reformers that Bishop Tonstall noted no lesse then two thousand Corruptions in the New Testament only Is not this good dealing in so short a volume Is reading of these Translations called by you the Knowledge of Scripture Chap. 1. Num. 3. 10. But to go on with my former discourse I did say Of my 19th Number let any man aske the Priests of our Church what is the known doctrine of the Church and let him rest securely when he knows that This you say is unreasonable because the Priests are not infallible But Sir do you not marke that I ground their faith not upon the Priest but upon the Church Universal Just as you say you ground your faith not upon your Translations which only conveigh as the Priests doe the word of God to the searcher of it yet we have incomparable more assurance of the agreement of what the Priests say to be the known doctrin of the Church with the true doctrine of the Church then you have of the agreement of your most corrupted as we now shewed Translations with the true Word of God which I explicated more largely in the beginning of the last Number whence you will see that when by fallible men we know that this word Homo a man signifieth a man and not a beast that when I find in Scripture thaâ— God became Homo a man I am infallibly assured he became a true man and not a beast Or a sea-man so when by fallible men we know assuredly enough to make it evidently credible that this is the doctrine of the Church we are assured by the Church that is true For the Church is infallible as I am here proving and secured from all errour which the Scripture to those who rejects the Church are not neither in their Translations as I have here shewed nor in their Original as I shewed in the last chap Numb 35. And again although you were secured of the true Scripture yet you are not secured of the true sense of it as I shewed there Num. 50. And yet again a great many necessary Controversies are not contained in Scripture as I shewed in the beginning and ending of that Chapter which whosoever shall read will wonder with what confidence you ask well and are not all things necessary taught in the Scripture I have also shewed you it is false that what Authority the Church hath it hath from the Scripture see Chap. 3. N. 30. 31. 32. yea immediatly before those places I did by eight arguments shew that you have no infallible assurance of true Scripture if you deny the Churches infallibility And whosoever shall but consider what I sayd in the last Number will have a ready answer to your question here Why doth your Church take away from the people the vse of Scripture Sir why doth your English Church in place of Scripture give them such damnably corrupted Scriptures These Corruptions take indeed from them the use of Scripture it being impossible for them to know what is uncorrupted in such a Chaos of corruptions How miserably do you provide for the poor people In our manner of requiring that law from the Priests which your own Translation saith the people should do there is no more danger then in your taking the signification of a word in Scripture from the Publick consent of all men Again we permit the use of Scripture in such languages as a general council can judge of because they be sufficiently understood by the Church Universal Vulgar translations are incomparably more easily corrupted and their Corruptions unknown unto her The Latine language is known to most well bred men in learning To such others as are sober stayed and peaceable spirits the Church denyeth not the use of such Translations as their lawful local Prelates hold secure Farther use of Scripture is an abuse and we both see and fell the sad effects of it You who so carpt at going to the Priests of the Church for Knowledge of the law You I say if you mark it send all your people to your own Priests as you call them neither rightly ordained nor Canonically licensed to preach For to bid them go to the English Bible is to bid them go to translations most corrupted and authoriz'd only by your Ministers To confer these Translations with the Originals they cannot do no nor you neither For you know not infallibly the true Originals It is your own doctrine Translations are only known to be Gods word as far as they are known to agree with the Originals how far this is you not knowing the true Original cannot tell Of this you and all yours who deny the Church infallible are ignorant And upon your word who how learned so ever are ignorant of this which only concerns them they all in this highest matter must rely I put this so fully with great reflection because that Noble party whose Champion you are gave occasion to all our combating by carping at our blind obeying our Priest and believing them whereas all those of your Religion could go to the fountain But alas when that fountain which they conceive themselves to drink to their eternal health is so poisened as I shewed in the last Number that millions of millions as your own Broughtoâ— saith runne to Hell flames by occasion of this corruption And I may most truly say far more perish by mis-understanding whilest they follow their Ministers and their own private judgement of discretion that which is truly Translated then Perish by the corruption of that which is falsly Translated Thus they perish for not hearing that Church which their own Scripture bids them heare whereas in doing that which God biddeth there can be no danger of errour great or little And you slander us when you say we bid the people require from the Priests mouth not the law of God but the doctrine of the Church Sir the doctrine of the Church is Gods law And
did rely only upon traditions For if they had relied upon any things else in their beliefe their example had bin nothing to his purpose to shew what we should have done when we had only Tradition to rely upon 14. As for arguing about Tradition I went no Further then to shew that the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility in proposing for Gods word that which she delivereth us for Gods Word as worthy of an infallible assent in this point And the examples I bring prove this Now if this point be once assented unto with an infallible assent it draweth by unevitable Consequence the like assent to all other points which by the same authority are testified to be likewise delivered as Gods Word Or else you must be forced to say that it is in our power to assent to this authority as divine in all things it delivers as Gods Word and yet to deny it in some things which it delivers as Gods word which is a plain contradiction Well then if upon this presupposed authority as infallible I believe the Church delivering such and such points by her doctors and teachers which be points never written then it is manifest I believe her in other points then those which were then written so I may with as good reason believe her now upon her own authority testifying other points then those which are written Whence you see all I say holdeth good even in Traditions of proper name which we say are besides that which is written I cannot conclude more opposite to you then with your own words here P. 73. Tradition in matters of faith unwritten is of equall authority to scripture The Traditions we stand upon be matters of faith truly once revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles though this revelation were not written by them Therefore this is of equall authority to Scripture even according to your own words 15 I going on to prove yet further that Christ intended to guide us not by the Scripture only but cheifly by his Church used this argument Neither the Apostles nor their Successors took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as all or the greater part of them could understand You answer they did take care that the new Testament should be written in Greek Then you being still to prove that Greek was understood by all or the greater part of the world your only proof of this is only out of Tully saying Graeca per totum Orbem leguntur Greek is read though the whole World and so is Virgil in latin But neither the one nor the other is to be understood in a sense making to our purpose for both these sayings are only true thus that the more learned sort of men every where read Greek and Virgil. And these words of Tully being delivered in on Encomiasticall Oration pro Archia may truely be said to be spoken by way of a Notable amplification And either this must be confessed or Scripture denied For it is evident out of Scripture That the Vulgar language of diverse Nations situated even between that place we call Constantinople and the Citty of Antioch in which a man would suppose the Greek language farre more common then in the more Western or any Northern or Southern places yet I say even between those two Cities of Antioch where the same Tully saith Archias was born and studied and Constantinople the Greek tongue was not the Vulgar language of Pontus Cappadocia Asia minor Phrygia Pamphilia all which Nations the Scripture Act. 2. testifieth to have had different languages Within that compasse is also Galatia which Saint Hierome testifieth to have had a language somewhat like those of Trevers If nations so neere Greece had not the Vulgar use of that language but that tongue had so small a compasse even in Asia and some few Eastern parts of Europe all other parts of Europe and whole Africa using Vulgarly other Tongues how short do you fall of proving that Greek was understood by the greater part of the World And if this cannot be proved then I said truly that though the Apostles writ the new Testament in Greek yet they did not take any care to have it communicated to all Nations in such Languages as they could all or the greater part understand For all or the greater part could not understand Greek call here to mind how lowd you use to cry out against us for using our Common prayer in Lattin though Lattin be so common among all well bred people And yet our Cōmon prayer is a thing only offered to God by the Priests who understand what they say for the people But the New Testament contains as you say the only necessary groūd of faith faith necessary to salvation But the falsity of this your saying is convinced by the Apostles taking no care neither read we of any care taken for many yeares after their times to communicate the whole Canon of Scripture to the severall converted Nations in their several tongues I pray name me the time when the Scripture can be first shewed to have bin thus communicated to the people of so severall languages You will sweat for some hundred yeares before you can find this either done or effectually desired to be done They know the tongue could sufficiently deliver Gods Word to the people and that Orall Tradition joyned to dayly profession practise would abundantly suffice for the infallible delivery of Gods Word 16. You move the question how the people should clearly know the true tradition from the false I answer first they could know this better then know true Scripture from false for they could not do that but by knowing first the true Tradition recommending the true Scriptures from the Tradition recommending false Again after Christ they could do this as well and better then their forefathers for many hundreds of years yea for two thousand yea for twice two thousand yeares together Reflect a little upon the efficacy of Tradition joyned with perpetual profession and answerable practice dayly occurring For example The Apostles by onely unwriting Tradition did clearly undeniably teach the baptizing of Children prayer for the faithfull departed This Tradition from hence came to be Professed as true doctrine by all the first Christians and conformably hereunto they in all places baptized their Children in all places they prayed for the faithfull departed Nothing more common then being born every one that is born dieth whence dayly was the practice of baptizing infants and yet more dayly the practice of praying for the dead because they baptize infants but once but they pray often for the same man who is dead Will we suppose these two traditions are called in question concerning the truth of them And let us suppose this to be done as it was done in the last age Learned men looking in Records of their own and all other Countries will find every where Christnings and every where prayers
of it Wherefore seeing that a motive power is no motive power any further then it can or ought to be able to motive the Emperiall power which cannot move further then it reigneth nor ought not to move further cannot consequently command any further then his territory at the uttermost The power of the cheife Pastor of the Universal Church is coextended to the Universal Church All Bishops of the Universal being to be moved must be moved by such a power as this is If Emperours called councils it was not by an Ecclesiastical calling such an one as the Pope called them by at the very selfe same time but the Emperours calling was only political proceeding from a temporal power subserving to the Ecclesiastical and not able to force them by censure in case of refusing to come as the Ecclesiastical power could which power implored the Emperiall assistance to concurre with her only for the more effectual excution Perhaps somtimes Emperours might venture to call dependently of the ratification of the supreme Pastor which they presumed would be assuredly obtained in so just necessities as there seemed to presse for a speedy meeting If Emperors were present in Councels it was only by their presence and good countenance to honor encourage and further the proceedings of the Councel and to passe their Vote in points of beliefe You add something else now but it comes again presently Fifthly you object How shall we know that every one of the Councel hath a free election to it and a free decisive Vote in it I answer the freedome of every mans calling is made evidently credible by the publick sūmons sent through the whole Christian world obeyed by the same without any pertinatious opposition and the answerable publick apperance from all parts of the world every one exhibiting the publickely authenticated testimony of his election and confirmation If any man be excluded he may without he will renounce his right be heard in the Councel which being a publick hearing the matter cannot but be known Many yet never were nor can be thus injured without making their injury notorious by publik protestations and such lik remedies alwayes used against unjust exclusion or hinderance of liberty in Voting If the Councel be known notoriously to use such procedings we are not to acknowledg it for a lawfull Councel Again as private mens proceedings are not to be judgeed bad unless they can be proved to be so much lesse ought the proceedings of the Church representative to be judged bad without sufficient proof of the contrary And when such evident and notorious ill proceedings are not apparent nothing can be solidly objected against the lawfulness of the Councel And therefore it being to be admitted as a lawfull Councel it belongeth to the Holy Ghost to provide that their difinitions be not prejudiciall to the Church put under his protection and direction You only look what the inward nature of humane malice might act but you should also look to the extrinsical over-ruling providence promised by God against humane malice and weakness This is that which maketh all these factions and bandings and domineering self interest never to be effectually destructive of that secure direction promised by God to his Church Though hell gates should be set wide open they should not prevaile against her Sixthly you ask how shall ignorant people be divinely perswaded that the Councel is general I answer the publick Summons to the Councel sent through the Christian world The Publick appearance of Prelats made upon these summons from all parts of the world Their publick sitting publick subscribing publick divulging their decrees and definitions acknowledged truly to be theirs by all present denied by no man to be theirs with the least shew of probability no more then such an Act is denied to be the Act of such a Parliament All these motives I say maketh it evidently credible to the ignorant and to the learned that this is the true definition of the Church Now this being evidently credible to be her definition and I believing by divine faith all her definitions to be true I also believe this definition amongst the rest to be true It is a great signe you are ill furnished with strong arguments when you would perswade us that in things so easy to be known there be such insuperable difficulties The Councel of Trents definitions concerning faith were never opposed by France though some things ordained for practice seemed lesse sutable to the particular state of that Kingdome yet this difficulty was at last removed Seventhly you ask how many Bishops in the Trent Councel were furnished with a title to over-power the rest for the Popes ends I pray Sir tell me how many But tell me by credible witnesses such as are their own subscriptions who can assure me of this truth And when you have told me this give me leave to aske what one of them was as much as suspected to be of a faith different from the rest If they differed not in faith from the rest how then can the Pope be suspected to have acted against faith by making such Bishops Again doth the making of such Bishops make the holy Ghost unable to order things so in the councel that nothing shall happen destructive of the secure direction undertaken to be afforded for ever by him Saul shall sooner turn a Prophet and Caiphas shall prophecie not knowing what he doth before the spirit of truth sent to teach the Church all truth shall faile in his duty Eightly you ask how the Church was provided for when for so many yeares there was no Pope defining with a Councel This time you mean was the first three hundred years after Christ when for persecution no Council could be gathered All this time the known doctrine of the Apostles remained so fresh and so notorious by the Tradition of the Church diffused and there remained also so Universal a respect and obedience to the cheife Bishop of the Church notoriously known to be the upholder of true doctrine that the Church wanted not meanes to decide Controversies as farre as the necessity of those times required whence the Quartodecimani although they opposed nothing set down clearly in Scripture were Iudged Heretikes for opposing the doctrine of the first Church made evidently known by fresh Tradition Now as the Church could want Councils for so many years so it could want Councils for the short space of schism For the necessity of new declarations it not so frequent at least in any high degree of necessity calling for instant remedy and a reme-of this nature only Scripture alone you say will remedy this necessity We besides scripture have alwayes at hand the many definitions of former Councils and the known Traditions of the Church which alone served Gods Church in those two thousand yeares before Scripture and for two thousand yeares more served the faithful amongst the Gentiles who had not the Scriptures which remained almost solely and alone
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 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
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
two say the same thing it is not the same thing said So when one saies the same thing in divers respects it is not the same in sense presently because in words And if it be said this is the question whether it be said in divers respects we answer that we do not here speake of divers respects formall but objective for even according to the Principles of the Arrian Christ is not an ordinary man as appeares by their position 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was a time when he was not and therefore there is no reason to expound the words in the same sense when they are applied to God and Christ as when they are applied to God or Christ and the Disciples Secondly the definition of the Council is not false if this point cannot be resolved into the infallible word of God but my opinion is false unlesse he thinks my opinion is the same with the definition of the Council and if so then the Council holds that all things necessary are resolvable into plain Scripture and if so then by his opinion he should stand to this definition and if so he should yield the cause Thirdly the Pontificians have no such cause to stand so punctually for the necessary belief of the Divinity of the Son of God because according to their Champion Bellarmin in his fifth b. de Mediatore he holds that Christ is not a Mediator according to both natures but only in regard of the humane nature ratione formalis principii for though he says Christ be a Mediator according to both natures ratione suppositi and as Principium quod yet is not his Divinity so necessary as by being Mediator in regard of his Divine nature as the formall principle and as a principium quo because thus the Divine nature is more necessary per se But thirdly either the definition of the Council is true or false if true then is it for us if false then how shall we trust any He goes on For this is the plainest place And yet conferring it with the other I finde 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 Ans Whether this be the plainest place is a question since there are other texts unto which this ambiguitie is not incident as besides that named before St. Mat. 28.19 Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost where the three Divine Persons have one name namely one authoritie and therefore essence and this text doth not a little puzzle the Socinian And yet secondly if the sense of the text were that Christ and his Father were one in affection it doth not follow therefore that it is evidently rather against the definition of the Council because they may be said to be one in affection since they are one in nature that which affirms so much doth not alwaies exclude more therefore unlesse it were said they were one in affection onely it would not be evidently against the Council But if the text by compare with the other did make this sense of being one in affection it would not import exclusively that they are one in affection onely Therefore though the text did not inferre the Councils meaning yet upon the supposition the Arrian Cobler could not conclude the definition of the Council to be absolutely false since the text doth not conclude a falsitie of that position because to be one in affection and to be one in essence it doth not imply for if they be one in essence they are one in affection So then if my Adversary makes the Cobler to conclude the definition of the Council false as to the matter that the son of God is coessentiall with the Father it is inconsequent if respectively to the text whereby they prove it then it is indeed consequent that the definition of the Council was false but then we make a certain Conclusion of it for our use that the definition of the Council of Nice was not infallible And if so my Adversary is undone And now also I take leave to be even with my Adversary He takes the Arrian Cobler for his example I take the Popish Collier To this man the Roman Doctors as my Adversary thinks give no finall resolution of his faith but in the Church They give him no leave to peep into Scripture for the setling his belief Or if his Doctors do very tenderly let fall to him any intimation of Scripture so far as to confirme by it the infallibilitie of his Church then surely that which seems to speak most for their turne and is in the mouth of all of them namely St. Mat. 16.18 I say unto thee thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church c. through the nineteenth v. Well but will his Dctors give him leave to examin this Interpretation of the text with any other Dare they Very hardly They tell him he may securely rest his faith and soule in the Authority of the Church But here is the question whether the Church doth rightly interpret the text on their own behalf If they say it is plain that that is the sense we reply then may other texts be plain also for us Yea it is not plain for the ancient Fathers of the Church have differed from them upon the exposition therefore the Popish Collier should have leave for once from the inquisition by a dispensation of the Pope to inquire as well as the Arrian Cobler into the sense of the text and therefore by his poor understanding which yet a wiser man would see sooner he doth discerne by comparing it with the twentieth of John 21 22 23. ver That it is not reasonable to expound the former text of such an authority to be given to St Peter which was not in the latter given to the rest of the Apostles specially since Bellarmin is wisely carefull that the Princedome of the Church should not be given to St. Peter till after his Resurrection lest St. Peter's Successors should not be delivered from danger of succeeding him in the deniall of his Master Now then if equall authoritie be given to all the Apostles as St. Cyprian plainly also in his Tract at de simplicitate Praelatorum hoc erant utique et caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis and a little before saies that Christ gave all the Apostles after his Resurrection parem potestatem equall authority how shall he collect from the other that to be the Prince of the Apostles and to be ordinary Pastor of the whole Church was given to St. Peter Now then is this Collier at a plunge he doth not see it in the former text by conferring it with the latter and therefore he concludes according to my Adversary for the Cobler that this doth not agree with the
that time infallible which yet we grant not a possibilitie of it to be infallible still It doth not inferre an actuall infallibilitie still Because God did so then therefore he did so after the word was written is as good an Argument as this because God made an extroardinary light for the time before the Sun was created therefore we must not now be directed by the light of the Sun As if because God did sufficiently rule his Church without general Councils for the first three hundred yeares therefore we should not make use of Councils now And then we say secondly we must not compare the two thousand yeares before any word was written but onely with the time of the Church when the Gospel was not written as for fortie years after Christ untill the Canon was finished and so it bears some proportion but it is not to be compared with the other times of the Church after the finishing of the Canon For then the word was to be the ordinary standing rule without Prophets or Apostles Thirdly was there any thing necessary consigned by tradition to the Church which was not put into writing This cannot be said because then God should have provided for his Church worse afterwards by writing And if it be said that the writing of the word doth not exclude the word not written which is tradition let them tell me why when all was in tradition before somewhat was put into writing and somewhat left in the way of tradition And then also let them tell me how that of our Saviour should be true St. John the fifth 39. Search the Scriptures for in them you think to have eternall life and they are they which testifie of me if any thing necessary were left in tradition how could they have eternall life in the Scriptures So then since all that was necessary was committed to writing why then was not that whereby the Church was ruled for forty years before the Canon was finished written also as well as before and then your tradition which you contradistinguish to Scripture is evacuated Or let me know why we may not as well deny the Roman traditions in point of faith after the finishing of the Canon as our Saviour did the traditions of the Pharises after their Canon was finished And why then should we not apply to them that of our Saviour to the Jews St. Mat. 15.9 In vaine do they worship me teaching for Doctrine the traditions of men Might not the Pharisees as well have put their traditions into their Mishna which as the tradition is was delivered by word of mouth from God to Moses from Moses to Joshuah from Joshuah to the seventie from them to the Church And fourthly my Adversary speakes this in favour of Generall Councils does he not If he does not his discourse doth not well cohere if he does he does not consider that for the two thousand yeares there was no generall Council nor for the first forty of the Christian Church Nor much for the first three hundred years And what consequence can be then drawn from his words against me for my deniall of being obliged absolutely to Councils If the Church were infallible even without Councils it would contradict me who say that the Church is not infallible even by Councils but since he sayes now the Church is infallible by Councils if it were infallible without Councils it would contradict him who says it is infallible in and by Councils because he placeth the infallibilitie in Councils so as that he will not stand to any infallibilitie of the Church without them Num. 7. In the seventh Number he doth indeavour to free me from the fear of hypocrisie in differing by an outward act from our inward act of belief But his indeavour is not sufficient To differ by my outward act of subscribing from my inward act of belief is hypocrisie but if I subscribe to that which I do not assent unto as true I must differ by my outward act from my inward act and therefore will it be hypocrisie To the assumption he would now give me satisfaction by perswading me that my inward act of assent may well go along with my outward act of subscribing His reason is this for any wise man may inwardly perswade himself that although I by my force of wit cannot see how such a point defined by a whole General Council should be true yet if I have wit I cannot but perswade my self even according to humane wisdome that so grave a judgement of a whole Council is far more likely to see the truth than my private judgement and therefore rather to be interiourly imbraced Ans And is this all he can say to move me to change my opinion First he seems to suppose that we cannot see sufficient reason in all the determinations of a Council and so far he speaks ingenuously because it is a prejudice against himself Secondly there are so many doubts of a free generall Council about the morall existence of it that I had need of some Divine faith to believe that such or such is a free Generall Council And that there may be such scruples of such a Council he himself afterwards gives me intimation of Thirdly all this I can give you the free use of for it will do me no harme The discourse is peccant upon the ignorance of the Elench for this is in terms reconcilable to our cause yea and also almost all that follows to the end of the number for they do not prove a captivating of the soul into the obedience of faith as the Apostle speaketh but at most but a disposing of the mind of the person against opposition As you do conclude you conclude above your premisses as you should conclude from your premisses before you can conclude nothing against me For fourthly all that is said there makes no more than a probability of that to be right which is defined by the Council For put case it seems so to all in a generalitie or to most or to the wisest and of them to all or most of the wiser of them this is but probable according to Aristotle's account And then I will deny it that every Council is so qualified If it were this probabilitie makes but a strong opinion but not faith And therefore the Romanist doth unadvisedly urge necessity of faith upon grounds infallible before they can give us grounds infallible And therefore fifthly as for his Dilemma it will not take It is this Either the places against the definitions of the Council are clear or not if not they are more likely to hit upon the truth than I am if clear and evident then it is an evident and clear folly in me to thinke that so wise an Assembly should have so universall a blindnesse as that none of them should be able to discover that which is cleare and evident even to my short sight alas how far comes this short of infallible satisfaction And
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
those who have not Bishops some of them would have them if it were in their power as Bogerman said in the Council of Dort when that Government was commended to him Domine nos non sumus adeo felices And as for those who are ordained without Bishops were this our case we may be as sure they are true Ministers as the Papists can assure themselves that they have true Priests in respect of the uncertainties they are under of the due intention of the Priest in Baptism and of the Bishop in Ordination As to Deacons they might have been left out of the rank with Priests as to true Sacraments for it will not appear that Deacons are appointed jure Divino to assist the Ministers in the Sacraments and if so yet not to be necessary to true Sacraments that they do assist otherwise no true Sacraments What shall this also with the Romans goe into the account of articles of faith And shall this be as necessary to be believed as that Jesus is the Christ Sacraments things so necessary to the salvation of all men This we have spoken to before and it comes in here under a simple diction and not positively as it may be interpteted affirmed or if so necessary be to be taken signanter then is it more easily denied as to all men Our former distinction is yet good necessary by necessity of precept not by necessity of mean Neither is the other Sacrament so necessary as that and yet are they put together upon equall necessity The Sacraments bind us not God to work only by them And also are they administred as duely with us as elswhere Then he brings in a Syllogism against us out of my own words What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary but it is not plainly delivered in Scripture that the Church should be governed by Bishops with such and such authority Thus he would bring in some of those who differ from them and us in this point disputing against Bishops But how would he conclude Therefore not necessary to salvation unlesse he concludes thus it doth not contradict us in our debate And if he does conclude so he concludes beside their intention for they would conclude no more than that they are not necessary to the Government of the Church because it is not held by others that this Government with such and such authoritie is simply necessary to salvation But to the assumption we say dato that the Government of the Church by Bishops with such and such power is not plainly set down in Scripture yet let them shew as much out of Scripture with the practice of the Church for the Bishop of Rome his being universall Bishop as we can shew out of Scripture for Bishops with some authority superior to Presbyters and I shall think better of their cause And therefore let them remember Parvi sunt foris Arma nisi est Consilium domi Let them make sure at home before they combate us with our own contentions For secondly as for such and such authority if he takes it for the Mathematicall point and indivisible degree which the Bishop must have of authority over the rest of the Clergie who is there that so contends it but the Roman Some superiority in the latitude may be able to conserve the form and this is more easily proveable out of Scripture with the practice of the Church But thirdly since he hath brought the Antepiscoparians upon the stage to make sport for them what will the Pontificians say if this argument be in earnest brought against them whatsoever is necessary is plainly set down in Scripture Government by Bishops with such and such authoritie is not plainly set down in Scripture therefore not necessary The major proposition is yet true and good against all his batteries The minor is to have their advice whether they will affirm it or deny it let them speak categorically is it plainly set down or not If it be plainly set down then this instance is against them if it be not plainly set down then they have nothing plainly set down for the Bishop of Rome upon the former rule if there be no Bishop plainly set down then not the Bishop of Rome This he gets by our contentions As for the form of ordaining Priests or Presbyters it is sufficiently set down and we have it practised with us without the Patin and the Chalice and that none but those who are Priests formally or eminently as being more should blesse the bread and consecrate the Sacrament this is clearly enough set down and what kind of bread for the Sacrament as much as is necessary is set down The Pontifician hath no reason if he considers himself to urge all particularities about the Sacraments since he accounts them so necessary would God pinch that which is necessary under so many contingences which he doth not ordinarily provide against Therefore either they are not necessary and then why are they insisted in Or if necessary yet not in all the severall circumstances for then under how many accidentalities should salvation be included He says then he could add many more particulars to the former kind no lesse necessary to be decided If no more necessary it is not like to trouble us Or if necessary they should be decidable by plain Scripture Yes if necessary to salvation And then your Doctors could not jarr about them This I deny and he had better have taken our grant that those of this sort are not plainly set down in Scripture unlesse he had proved it more strongely than by our differences It is possible to differ in plain things but we need not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Mark the 6. 53. And again this is retorted Many things might be named which were in the opinion of some Pontificians no lesse necessary to be decided than the point of originall sin the immaculate conception of the Virgin the point of Residence and of Bishops whether by Divine right and yet are they not determined in the Trent Council no nor those neither positively But it may be they are not necessary for if necessary they should be decidable by plain Decree of Council and then the Doctors could not jarr about them But to give a further check to this unreasonable exacting of such particularities to be plainly decided by Scripture let them consider generally how little was affirmatively defined and clearly in the Council of Trent Yea for further instance are these severals which he hath pointed at more necessary to be decided than the point of Indulgences which was the main point which occasioned the divisions of the Council consequently And yet was not this sufficiently handled yea as the Author of the History says the Protestants complained that the Synod had passed it over without clearing any doubt or deciding any Controversie If they could not or would not how shall we be bound under pain of damnation to take
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
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
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
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
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
and is therefore assured us by the Spirit not because it is the hardest point but because it is the ground of all faith Perhaps because our Divines often call the Scriptures an undoubted principle the first principle you think they hold this principle like the first principles in Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable because they are of themselves as evident as any reason you can bring to make them more evident Ans No I had better reason for it than the expressions of their own Divines although we need no more if they in effect confesse as much as will serve us in the dispute But it is impossible for them or any other to fix a foot in Divinity but upon this ground or else we shall have no other assurance for the last resolution of faith than what we have in kind for Virgil's or Cicero's works Yea moreover their own Divines give this character of the Scripture because it is true of it it is not true because they say it and yet if it were true because they say it we make use of the Conclusion Or if it be an unquestioned principle because it is already granted to be God's word by all parties then why doth my Adversary call this into question which is the subject of the question and by all parties granted And also this makes it to be a common principle that it is granted by all parties And therefore are we to be tryed by it as by a common principle and not by the Church which is not granted by all parties to be that we should be tryed by specially if it be assumed that the Roman Church is the onely Church for then there will be a double Controversie one in thesi whether all faith is ultimately to be resolved by the Church and then another in hypothesi whether the Roman be the Church But we now put together that which he distinguisheth the Scripture is an undoubted principle and the first principle but not as the principle of Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable c. We discourse thus That which is indemonstrable is as the principle of Sciences but that which is as evident as any reason can be brought for it to make it more evident is indemonstrable therefore is it as a principle of Sciences The proposition is with my Adversary the propertie of the first principles in Sciences The Assumption is with my Adversary the very ratio formalis indemonstrabilitatis so then if the Scripture to be the word of God be as evident as any reason that can be brought for it to make it more evident then we have what we now contend for Now then if the Scripture cannot be demonstrated to be the word of God by the Church a priori then is it as evident as any reason can be brought for it but verum prius for the Church must be demonstrated by the Scriptures as we have often proved And if the Scripture were demonstrated by the Church a priori then were the Church the cause of Scripture which they themselves do not say and therefore may we give a reason of the Church by the Scripture and not infallibly of the Scripture by the Church and therefore is it as a prime principle in Sciences indemonstrable And yet my Adversary would circumvent me in the next number and bring me into a circle thinking that I am bound to give another proof by the Spirit why by the Spirit I do believe that the Scripture is the word of God but we stop him at first before he goes his rounds for he supposeth that which is not to be supposed that the testimony of the Spirit is not sufficient to make it self good to us of it self and that therefore we need another revelation secure from all illusion to ascertain me the former Ans This is little lesse than trifling for first we say not this internall testimony is proveable to others faith objective is proveable by Scripture but faith subjective is not proved but somewhat shewed by a good life for faith works by love as St. Paul And optimus Syllogismus bona vita as he said the best argument to others we have of faith is a good life But secondly we are as secure of the not being deceived in the testimony of the Spirit as the Apostles were in the kind Yea if we cannot be ascertained by the same testimony then how can the Council be assured that they are infallibly assisted by the Spirit Yea thirdly we are upon the higher ground for the assecuration of our faith because we resolve it into that which is antecedent to the Church and therefore have they lesse cause to put us upon intergatories why we believe the Scriptures for if we do not believe it for it self we have no reason to believe the Church To his Dilemma then Either I try the Spirit whether it be of God or no if I do not how am I then secure If I doe by what infallible means If I say by the Scripture you must needs laugh because you speak of the first act of belief c. Ans We say first that he misapplieth the text of the Apostle Trie the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 it is not meant of the Spirit of God I hope he thinks but of the Spirits of men which is our argument against them and therefore can we not sit down with absolute belief to what is proposed by man till we see it center'd upon the word of God which we believe infallibly came from God Secondly the tryall of the Spirits there injoined is by examining the matter whether proportionable to the word of faith but here he draws it to the triall of Scripture it self which is the rule of triall Thirdly though we do not try the testimony of the Spirit attesting to us the truth of Scripture yet the matter of Scripture may we compare with universall tradition which serves us for our use in the ministry of the Church not for our faith in the causality thereof Fourthly to be even with my Adversaries we return them their Dilemma they say we must believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Church which they say is infallible but we must infallibly know that this testimony of the Church is infallible by the Spirit of truth which leads us into all truth And this cannot be infallibly known but by a Revelation secure from all illusion And how come they by this revelation Either they try the Spirit or not if not how can they be secure If they doe by what infallible means If they say by the Church we must needs laugh because we speak of the first act of belief by which we first begin to believe the Church to be infallible Therefore all his agains are sent back again and the issue of all will come to this either this faith of the Scripture to be the word of God must be resolved into the testimony of the Spirit or of the
Church not of the Church because the testimony thereof is resolved into Scripture of which the question is yea if the testimony of the Church were infallible it must be infallibly proved by the Scripture and also that it is our rule of faith But thus we see the importunity of the Pontifician for their cause if we should say we resolve our faith of the Scriptures into the testimony of the Church they would never ask us a reason of our faith but when we say we resolve it into the internall testimony of the Spirit for our own private assurance they will not let us sit down with that but will demand a proof thereof although the testimony of the Church if it were the formall reason of our faith must be infallibly made good to us by the internall testimony of the Spirit but that which they would have us rest in for the Church we may not rest in for the Scripture And yet also have we other arguments from Scripture it self which have more moment in them unto the belief of Scripture than the meer testimony of the Church as Dr. White notes in the twenty sixth p. of the way to the true Church which is worthy to be perused also upon this account that there are severall testimonies collected even of Papists for the belief of Scripture without dependence upon the Church as of Canisius Bellarmin Biet Gregorie of Valence Stapleton some whereof we have quoted allready So then by my Adversaries own argument if we need not depend upon the Church for belief of Scripture then not for other points of faith The thirtieth Article hath nothing in it considerable but for us first that he saith it to be that most fundamentall Article that such and such books be infallibly God's word So then if it be the most fundamentall article then it is also fundamentall to the Church otherwise it is not that most fundamentall article but the Church must be the most fundamentall article And if it be fundamental to the Church then we resolve our faith in the highest principle and that which is primo primum and the Papists resolve themselves into that which is at best but secundo primum Our faith then being rooted in Scripture we can give a check to their vaunting of the priviledge of the Church as St. Paul did to the Jew but if thou boastest thou dost not bear the root but the root thee so the Church doth not bear the Scripture but the Scripture it And secondly we note in his thirtieth number what he saith Take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane We assume this infallible assistance is not yet proved and till it be proved the authority is but humane and yet doe we not scoff at the authority of the Church as he chargeth us but do make good use of it without infallibility And thirdly we might note that if some other had the answering of these papers he might tell them that they are mendicants of the question for first here they say that they ground this point upon the authority of the Church as being infallible And then again she hath an infallible authority which we account a fansie and yet again this infallibility alone must be that which groundeth not this perswasion but this infallible assent And yet again take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane These things so nearly belonging and essentially to the question are to be proved not supposed yet all must be supposed by them that so they might not seem to run at the ring and hit it as we may speak only the last hath a truth in it but also it supposeth in the drift a supposition for their use But at the last we have an appearance of an argument We have no other infallible ground left us but the authority of the Church assisted by the Holy Ghost since the Scripture hath no where revealed which books be Scripture which not Ans To this we say three things first that the argument is no way cogent because there is no necessity of either if we can be assured by the Holy Ghost that these books be Canonicall And if we cannot how did the Church at first assure it self that they were Canonicall So then Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is Secondly unlesse they prove the authority of the Church better they had better have left this out for otherwise there is no ground of faith unlesse our ground be admitted if this be a true Dis-junctive proposition that either the Scripture must set down which books be Canonicall which not or else the Church in the proposall must be infallible And yet if the Scripture should have set down which books were Canonicall it must be resolved whether that book wherein they were set down was Canonicall by the Holy Ghost also Then thirdly if the disjunctive be not true then his discourse is false if it be true in the proposition then we assume against them that the Scripture hath no where revealed whether the Church is infallible and therefore there is no other way to know it to be infallible but by it selfe So then it must prove the testimony of the H. G. by it self and if it can then may we prove the testimony of the Holy Ghost concerning Scripture by it selfe if not where will they set up In the 31. Num. he would squat Num. 31. and deceive the chase by a distinction which will not stay him from running round in the proving of Scripture by the Church and the Church by Scripture He sayes No Sir you never heard me give this reason unlesse it were when I spake to one who independently of the Church do professe himself to believe the Scripture to be God's word as you do And this is the effect of this Number for his defence and of those Divines who do not deale thus in proving the Church by the Scripture with all those who have not admitted the Scripture as infallible for they first prove the authority of the Church and that independently of the Scripture to be infallible Answ This covering is too short and indeed not sound for I am not bound to take notice how they prove it to others but how they prove it to me If they prove it thus to me then by their owne confession they are included in a circle And they prove it thus to me because I hold the Scripture to be God's word independently of the Church and so he saith of me as you do Secondly whereas he sayes If I be a Scholar I may know that their Divines do not answer so when they are put upon the question Why do you believe the Church I do answer that for my part I never pretended to be a Scholar as they do signanter I have neither head nor heart nor body nor books for the Controversies but yet this I
secondly That you do not say every point is infallibly decided by Scripture because it is not at all decided Well and what to this Sir is not this a necessary point Answ And is not this in another mans expression to be a begger of the question Let them prove it to be necessary but it seems rather by them that it is not necessary For since the Scripture doth not clearly decide it as they suppose therefore the Church should because otherwise it will be wanting in things necessary where the Scripture doth not determine Now if the Church hath determined for the last three of the first six hundred years it hath determined against the Pope for Kings not as we take them to be Heads of the Church as they take the Pope to be Head but as Supreme Governours circa Sacra And so the Church for that space which is most considerable in this business is against the Popes being Head of the Church and the Scripture doth not declare it for him as my Adversaries confess for then it should declare by consequent negatively against Kings as I have said before and therefore upon the whole matter they have nothing for the Popes being Head And then again if the Scripture hath not declared for the Pope it must be declarative sufficiently for the King because no other pretends to be competitor and this is their own argumentation The Church must be infallible no other Church pretends to infallibility but theirs therefore so Government of the Church must be The Scripture speaks of Government they dare not say that the Scripture declares for the Pope therefore it must declare for Kings Or since all agreement is resolved into common Principles let this difference be mediated by these four Propositions 1. Government of the Church is necessary 2. This Government must be in the Pope or the King 3. The Scripture doth not declare for the Pope 4. The Scripture declares all Points necessary therefore it declares for the King The three first Propositions they consent to And the fourth is not yet disproved therefore This Paragraph is a supernumerary N. 42. To make short work we have no need of repetitions But he will urge again S. Matthews Gospel and again tax me for holding it no point of necessity to believe that it was S. Matthews This he saies my learned Brethren in Ratisbon durst not say Plato's rule is good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much who speaks as what yet this is necessary for us to believe that it was written by one inspired indefinitely But it is not equally necessary for me to believe by whom for then I cannot believe the Epistle to the Hebrews because I cannot certainly believe it was written by Saint Paul Again my learned Brethren dared not deny it to be an Article of Faith But first an Article of Faith may be taken largely for whatsoever is to be believed Now though all Articles of Faith in a special sense are to be believed yet all that is to be believed is not in the sense of the question an Article of Faith But then secondly Not to dare to deny it is not to affirm it One is a negative act the other a positive But a pari if I must be bound to their opinion why is not my Adversary bound to his learned Brethren in Ratisbon who did not state infallibilities as my Adversaries do with the necessity of a Council And why do my Adversaries differ from Bellarmin and others of their Brethren who will be scandalized by them because they dispute the Popes being Head of the Church from Scripture for they would be loth to want the Authority of the Scripture for so capital a point which concerns not many millions onely as the other and therefore it seems not absolutely necessary because then it would concern absolutely all but even all for in Bellarmin's opinion as in his Catechism a Christian is defined by union to the Church under the Pope as Head thereof As for his provoking me to believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew upon account of the Church in this number also by the Authority of S. Austin I say onely he might have been so modest as to have left this out until he had answered me in what I have said to that Testimony of Saint Austin at large before N. 43. Here he runs mightily upon a mistake for what I spoke by way of supposition he construes Categorically I said we might suppose more assistance not assurance to the Church in commending Books Canonical than in other cases He takes me to have spoken positively as if God had given infallibility to the Church in this matter though in none other and therefore we are obliged to believe the Church in this absolutely Whereas what I said comes to no more than what is usually said upon such cases dato non concesso And do not the Schoolmen dispute upon hypothetical questions As if I should say If the Pope were infallible in person what need would there be of a Council Or if my Adversaries had a minde to be contented with common Principles of Christianity we should soon have done These Consequences are upon meer suppositions So if we were bound to receive the Canonical Books from the Church we might suppose more assistance as to this than to other Points Doth this affirm that the Church had infallible Assistance herein and that we were to take the Books ultimately upon the Authority of the Church Again if we were to take the Books upon the account of the Church what is this to the Roman Church Is not the Universal Church of all times and places more credible than the Roman The whole bears them not they the whole Nay when he had abused my Supposition in p. 86. he doth acknowledge that I do not make belief of Scripture to depend upon the Authority of the Church So then my Adversary needs not to triumph and say This spoils all your onely shift c. He runs away with the line but he will be hooked as well My Adversary hath granted me that the Scripture may be said to contain all things necessary because it sendeth us to the Church where we may have them And may not I as well say to this that this spoils all may I not return him the fruit of his Discourse mutatis mutandis Will he grant that we have direction to the Church from Scripture Then the onely shift they have to avoid our Position of the Scriptures containing all things necessary is still to say that the Scripture sends us to the Church And will they 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 onely Authority of the Scripture That we are universally to hear the Scripture in things necessary to salvation we have many pregnant places in Scripture as hath been shewed but that we are to learn this one point
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
heaven and so all his arguments fall of themselves That which he saies he addes that our whole Church teacheth the definitions of Councils confirmed to be infallible how little hath it in it their whole Church if they take it for the universal Church it is but a part either in quantity or dominion If they mean it not as the universal Church then we may say as well our whole Church teacheth that they are not infallible nay nor did the former Councils themselves account themselves infallible But 2. Councils confirmed by whom confirmed why do they not here speak out for in other places where this is not actually contested they will say that they are to be confirmed by the Pope But why then are they so loath to end the controversie upon which side the superiority should be cast upon the council or upon the Pope for if the councils are to be confirmed by the Pope then they have their esse Constitutivum from him and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must have the superiority notwithstanding what the Council of Basil and Constance determined But I can demonstrate that no Circumstances will ever be sufficient to give occasion to this decision All points are to be decided by Councils confirmed now the councils will never vote the superiority of the Pope nor the Pope confirm the superiority of the Council Therefore it will never be decided Let them therefore submit to Scripture which their Church obligeth them to believe And let them hereafter think better of the Scriptures sufficiency since in such points the Church Roman cannot or will not or dare not supply its supposed defects And they shall find it not to leave them ignorant of what is necessary for them to know to cavill at it they will pretend that to be necessary which they will say the next moment not to be necessary They call for a decision by Scripture of the question whether a King be head of the Church as of a necessary point and now they deny the question to be necessary of the Pope N. 58. Herein he would reinforce his argument to prove us contrary to Scripture in not receiving extreme unction as a Sacrament upon the command of St. Iames 5.13 14 15. ver first he declaimes upon our deniall of their interpretation And then would urge it upon compare of the claritude of this next for them with the clearenes of other texts produced for us Let them answer our texts as we answer theirs and not only say that one is as clear as the other Well but he saies now How clear this place is appears by the very letter in which we have all we can desire to make a Sacrament a visible signe of an invisible grace Ans every Sacrament of proper name is a visible signe of an invisible grace but every visible signe of an invisible grace is not a Sacrament of proper name unles it hath Christs institution And therefore must we referre it to the use of healing spoken of St. Marke the 6 13 which it seems continued some time 1 Ep. Cor. 12. â—9 And 30 gifts of healing Yet he supposeth that the Scripture hath decided this point for them Hereupon we came upon him if the Scripture hath decided this point then the Scripture can judge and end controversies To this he replies by asking whether it therefore follows that it can end all necessary controversies because it can end this one controversie We reioyne that it doth not follow ex vi formae that because it can do one it can do all But yet it may follow ex vi materiae thus if it can decide this which is a necessary matter why not all such since especially they confess this Sacrament is not so necessary as some other because it is but a casuall Sacrament And the Sacrament of penance may supply the use of it But 2. The use which we make of his former concession as it seems that the Scripture had decided this point is in order to the act more then the object For hereby we see that the Scripture can decide a point which by them is wont to be allowed onely to a living judge now it is true ex parte actus if it can decide one it can decide another for the cheif incapacity of the Scriptures not deciding controversies is urged in reference to the act and therefore a living judge is by them substituted for this capacity But he saies again is this controversie by this text ended do you not still stand out in the contrary opinion Ans This doth not hinder the controversie to be ended because we are not convinced It is possible for them to be convinced of some points which they will not profess It is possible for some points to be clear which they are not convinced of conviction therefore is not the measure of decision For by this argument the Trent Council had with us and the French ended no controversies because we are not convinced thereby And therefore we are not to be guided by them because they cannot end our controversies And if they say the Council is furnished with sufficient assistance of the spirit which may be apt to convince surely we can say that the Scripture is more apt to convince because there is no question made of its being written by inspiration So then we cannot say that the point of extreme unction is not decided because we are not convinced but we can say that we are not convinced because it is not decided But also we must note to them from hence that it seems we must be perswaded in matters of beliefe by the Holy Ghost since texts which they suppose so clear do not convince Moreover he saies your second answer is flatly against the Text for you say those words do onely relate to the gift of healing in those daies and the Scripture saith they have also a relation to the healing of the soul If he hath committed sinnes they shall be forgiven him Ans Qui ad pauca respicit de facili pronunciat He doth not take notice that the healing of the soul hath relation to the prayer of Faith unless Estiâ— and the Rhemists can indeed prove that the Prayer of Faith is the forme of the Sacrament Secondly whereas he blames me for referring this to the gift of healing let him retract that blame for the Council of Trents sake which in the 14 session for want likely of other Texts to prove Christ's institution of this Sacrament will have it insinuated by St. Mark which surely can be onely in the 6. ch where it refers to the gift of healing And there they may see that the Elders did cure by anointing with oyle which he demands a Text for And they did it commonly in respect of frequency though not commonly quod modum effectus Therefore may we see by this that the Trent Council could erre and if that other Councils they may think in its peremptory determination of
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
vertue and so is their Religion a politique Religion And if a man may proceed prudently in the choice of his Religion then he doth not beleive first and then understand as yet the vulgar Latin reads that text but we must understand first and then beleive Prudence is a Moderatress of actions not a mistress of Faith And how doth Prudence consist with implicite Faith which believes what it doth not know Prudence is a vertue of reason which is contradistinguished to Faith And if we may proceed prudently in the chusing of our Religion then we may well exercise the judgment of discretion in matters of Faith and therefore are not simply bound to take upon trust whatsoever their Church obtrudes He goes on Then you conclude all the force my former Argument hath it hath from Scripture Is not my Argument the better for this Yes If the Argument were grounded in Scripture it were better upon that ground than upon any other but this Argument is not good because it is not taken from Scripture Scripture is the best Argument in Thesi but in Hypothesi it is not well applied We like it well that he goes about to prove the Church by Scripture which is the highest principle But let them not give us such a sense of Scripture which belongs not to their cause unless against it In the next number which he nameth the fourth but then it seems the third is lost by the way he saith I stumble again at the senses of damnable errours Ans No N. 4. For I discourse of it by a Dilemma or disjunctive which will take in either sense but he is not willing to move this stone again therefore he stumbles at it Another Text he builds upon St. Matthew 18.17 N. 5. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a publican or a Heathen Upon this he â—â—mes an argument God Commandeth us to hear the Church and obey her but no kinde of errour little or great can be incurred by following Gods command Ans I am glad he hath any such forme of discourse which would more clearly and handsomely shorten the debate we therefore answer to it passing by all discepiation about the sense of the Church there or the quality of the cause We say then if he understands the major so as that God absolutely universally commandeth us to heare and obey the Church then the conclusion were good and we could not erre in following the Church But so the minor is denied God hath not absolutely and universaly commanded us so to heare and obey the Church If he understands the major specificatively and in things lawfull then we can grant the minor but then the conclusion will not be universall will be peccant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so not conclude contradictorily to us who do not dispute here against all obedience to the Church negatively as if we would have none but against all obedience affirmatively as being not bound in faith to all commands And therefore need he not come in with a reliefe to succour his discourse by saying from me it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour though it be not damnable This true but not well applied to me unles he can prove Gods command for absolute obedience in whatsoever the Church proposeth But as this is true so it is pertinent for me against him that though the universal Church cannot erre in points necessary where errour would be damnative yet could we not be bound universally to follow upon that account because no man can be bound to assent to an errour though not damnative Neither doth it follow from the Text therfore meerely and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held a publican or a Heathen Unles he understands by not hearing not submitting if he doth not understand it so it doth not follow if he does understand it so this is not to his purpose because though we may be bound to submit to the Church yet we may not be bound to believe the Church these are two things which he should have distinguished Therefore cannot he prove from hence that the Church cannot erre He is to be accounted an Heathen or publican upon not submiting to the Church in regard of authority not upon not assenting because of infallibility And therefore though we be all bound simply to avoid excommunication yet if the case were put that we must assent to an errour or else be excommunicated we take the censure and leave the errour and if they will not have proviso with a clave non errante for the censures of the Church then what condition was Pope Honorius in who was excommunicated as before If God binds against errour and the Church as we suppose bind to it we can say presently that the Church cannot absolve without God but God can absolve without the Church And this answereth the next verse in the Gospell as he produceth it But the former Answer he would take off in the next words by an argument To swerve from Gods word is to erre But this Text proveth that the the Church cannot erre Ans The major is indeed true but the Text doth not prove the minor therefore it is false because he saith the text proveth it And indeed if she could the meerely not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to Gods judgment a publican and heathen Ans This is denied Refractorines exposeth thereunto without acknowledgment of infallibility And yet am I still of this opinion that that Text concernes not matters of faith but of trespass betwen Brother and Brother and therefore that Text is not to his purpose This and more he saith nothing to here But yet I followed him and said that a man is not bound to believe the censure is just unles it apeare to be so To this he saies this last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine For the unanimous opinion of Learned men is that a man is bound to hold his superiours censure or command to be just unles the contrary appeares evident Ans first then this determination of the case by Learned men supposeth that a thing may appear evident against the superiours censure or command So that by consequence they have the unanimous opinion of Leanred men against them in two points first that a thing may be evident without the proposal of the Church for it may be evident against it 2. Then that the Church may make an injust censure or command But for his opinion he nameth three Learned men Chillingworth Hooker Laud. So he as to the first Mr. Chillingworth he hath nothing for him in his 108 nu For he maketh use of this rule In cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superiour nor cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees But how is this applied to our case Indeed it was his best course not to apply it Let
of Sam. 8. they have not rejected thee but me Ans Surely they had better have supposed this truth than proved it First and again we are not upon disobedience but inobedience not upon rejecting Authority which God had vested in Samuel but upon suspending assent to a truth proposed And then 2. In the time of Samuel it was a plain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the people had Laws and Ordinances given them by divine immediate direction but it is yet to be proved whether what Churches do enjoyn do come from God immediatly to the Prelats And therefore since that case had contempt in it the discourse suits not our question And Christ to his disciples the first Prelats of the Church he that despiseth you despiseth me Ans Those Disciples were not in his sense Prelats for the Apostles were the Prelates but these whom Christ here spake to were the seventy two Disciples or Elders Therefore he mistakes in the quality of the persons Secondly this was by Christ applied to ministerial acts of preaching these other Prelats seldome do yet if they did here were a mistake in the quallity of the matter which with us is in point of jurisdiction The main Text then is St. Matt. 23.2 The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair all whatsoever therefore they say unto you to keep and do He saies here Mark these most ample words all therefore whatsoever Ans we have marked them and yet cannot this Text be understood reduplicatively without exception because the Pharisees did teach errours He saies then many of them publiquely did teach errours though not by publique authority Ans So then they did teach errours and publiquely This which is affirmative is enough for us let them prove the negative for them But this is strange that they should teach and teach publiquely and not by publique authority If they did teach they did teach upon authority though not with that authority as Christ If they did teach publiquely then they had publique authority And doth not he seem to profess that authority was vested in them by a lawful succession of Moses And did my adversary thinke that they could sit in Mose's chaire and yet not have publique authority He calls them the lawfull successours of Moses But it may be they were not in the chaire when they did teach errours no How then is it said the Scribes and Pharisees set in Moses chair And how then did they teach publiquely But they were not in the chair of Moses when they did teach errours Will they say so But in their sense they were in the chair of Moses because they understand thereby authority if they doe not they are taken for then they must understand it of teaching the doctrine of Moses and then by consequent all whatsoever must be understood as symbolical thereunto And if they would understand it thus we would also subscribe this proposition that when they did teach errours they were not in the chair of Moses As namely when they did teach for doctrines the traditions of men Alas if this should be applied to the Pope in his chair how should the people be able to distinguish betwixt teaching errours publiquely which my adversary doth acknowledge and teaching them publiquely with publique authority which he denies They who formerly have told us that it is so easie a way to find by the Church to Heaven do now say that which shews it is an hard matter to find the Church teaching by publique authority One being imperfect in sight asked his servant whether there was not such a thing in the window and the Servant asked the Master whether there were such a window they tell us that there is in the Church infallibility taught by publique authority and others aske the question where is that Church and when shall we know when it teacheth so He tells us that they cannot do any thing against Scripture when they proceed by way of defining with publique authority Yea but we must have another infallibility to assure us that they do now thus define Let them infallibly define when the Church doth infallibly define since all good discourse begins with a definition And then let them tell us by what method we may come to the knowledge of this proposition that the Rulers of the Jews condemned Christ by private authority Neither is that to be swallowed Acts. 3.17 that the Church to the full hath now as much reason to be heard as the old jewish Church then For if he takes the Church here for the Church universall it were more likely indeed what he saies but how is that possible to make an address to them upon all occasions unles there were a standing Representative But if he takes the Church here for a particular Church by way of an Individuum vagum or determinately of the Roman it were indeed possible to make with more expedition address to such but then it would be shewed to be likely that any particular Church of any one denomination should have such priviledges annexed to it as the old Iewish Church had especially if we take in into the account of the old Iewish Church those extraordinary revelations of God immediately made to Moses and the Preists and the Prophets whereof Malachi was the last Indeed such an infallibility only will serve their turn but till they prove it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as the Synagogues authority was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard only in points of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother but was to be extended to all whatsoever they should order so you cannot without depressing the authority of Christs Church who had a better covenant established upon better promises Hebr. 8.6 hinder her power from being extended to all whatsoever she shall order Ans This undâ—es all I take the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of my adversary for my major proposition then I assume what proportion the Synagogue had to the whole Iewish Church a particular Church hath to the universal Church therefore every particular Church is not limited in authority but as he saith of the Synagogue that its authority was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard c. And then what need of an universal Church Bishop Council Indeed such a power would be requisite for the Roman Church because they cannot stretch it beyond a particular Church But this spoyles all his discourse in his four first Chapters which he saies he intended as for the universal Church But what use of this when a particular may sooner and more easily decide all having all authority to command and to be obeyed in all things which she shall order Thus not only the five Patriarchates were independent of any one and had all Iurisdiction within their own divisions but other Churches nationall might be independent and independents might be Churches And since ten men with the Jew made a people and a people made a capacity of a Synagogue why
of a Supreme Prelat or of a Council And that particular Prelats are here meant we need not prove to the Pontificians who take too much notice that there Epistles were written but upon particular occasions and for particular times And therefore this being written to the Hebrews should not by that account concern us Yea if it were written with an intention for Prelats in a Council it must be written for them per saltum not for the present times but for above 300. years after 2. This relates to those who did watch for their Souls which being put per se is to be understood of those that teach the Word and so it corresponds to the 7. ver where those that are set over them are specified by teaching the Word The obedience then there injoyned respects those as teaching the the Word not formally as exercising authority of Jurisdiction And therefore that Text is not here well applied Thus far the power of the Supreme Prelat is extended by the consent of the whole Church Ans We see then their own differences to be such as that they may be ashamed to upbraid us with our differences and we not ashamed to be upbraided Can my Adversaries exactly point out the maximum quod sic of the power of the Supreme Prelat of the universal Church Must he that is by them acknowledged to be the Pillar of the Church have his Pillars set him beyond which he must not budge Tell it not to the Canonists and the Courtiers of Rome As Cyril of Jerusalem notes that the Sea where it stints in the flote makes in a similitude a Line which God hath set it that it should not pass So have my Adversaries set a Line to the Roman Sea hitherto it may go by the consent of the whole Church So then the members may appoint the Head what operations and how far it shall perform and the Head shall not be onely influxive upon them but they rather upon it This opinion will make Popes shie of Councils if he hath his power extended by their consent For they do not mean the consent of the whole Church to be of the confusaneous multitude do they if they do then the Church in this sense shall be the first subject of Ecclesiastical power Yea If they also mean it of the Church in a Council how is the Pope successor of St. Peter when the Pope must be limited by the Church St. Peter as they say was Prince of the Apostles immediately from Christ And surely according to this reckning Bellarmins distinction will come to naught who saies the power of Kings is not by divine right but by the consent of the people but the Popes power is for it comes not from the Church but Christ as in his 3. b. de verb. Dei cap. 9. And then he is not the Rock and foundation of the Church but the Church of him and so the spiritual Monarchy must be slighted How far is this from that Italian who presented a book to Paulus the fifth with this inscription PaULo V to Vice Deo out of which one picked the number of the beast 666. But therefore my Adversary goes at the Spanish rate very suspensively in omnem eventum as being disposed to a pause betwixt the affirmative and the negative and he saith Now though the Supreme Head of the Church be as infallible as St. Peter was and so on in a long speech Well but doth this affirm or is it a meer supposition which doth ponere nihil He hath carried the Pope up to the clouds and there he staies but let them come out of the clouds and tell us plainly whether we must take a cloud for Iuno Such irresolution doth not become infallibility He seems to make him as infallible as St. Peter because he should be Supreme Head of the Church and yet St. Peter was not Supreme Head of the Church if the rest of the Apostles be included in the term Church as members and yet he must not be as infallible as St. Peter because cases of difficulty must be referred to the Council It follows yet if he seeth this newly vented doctrine fit to be declared heresie if it be so or to be imbraced if it be fitting and proposed to all Christendome then is the true time of calling a General Council and not to let the people contend by allegations of Scripture We are now step by step soberly mounted to the Soveraign Authority of the Church in a Representative Ans 1. What needs all this trouble if he be as infallible as St. Peter and why do they say that St. Paul went to St. Peter to confirm his Doctrine by St. Peters Authority should there not have been a Council called then as well According to them St. Peters infallibility confirmed St. Pauls Doctrine the Pope according to them is Successour of St. Peter in his infallibility to all effects and purposes as Ruler of the Church therefore he may do it and frustra fit per plures also 2. Note we here that it is to be the true time of calling a Council upon debate of a point heretical which respects Articles of Faith but we have been often told by our Adversaries that we are to have an infallible Judge to decide all controversies emergent Now if there be not a Council to be called but for decision of Articles of Faith as to their's we have lesse need since he that is an Heretique is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks And therefore he needed not to foreclude the peoples contending in allegations of Scriptures for surely Scripture may be alleaged without contention and if it happens sapiens non curat de accidentalibus And so also the Council may contend in allegation of Scripture and therefore they should not alleage Scripture Yea also we may soberly contend that in articles of Faith there needs not be any other contention since they are more plainly delivered in Scripture than that we must stay for a General Council to be established in the belief of them Blessed be God we are better provided for in articles of Faith than to stand in such necessity of a General Council which when such will be and how we shall know it is such according to them we must know by another General Council and that by another and so in infinitum since we know nothing infallibly but by the infallible authority of the Church and that in a General Council We will then take that for our Law whereby the Council must Judge since the matters are plain which are great and about other things small the Judges will not meet Lex non curat de minimis Let Hiero conclude for himself from hence forward whatsoever Archimedes saith it must be believed But it seems it is a book case and example we have hereof by the practice of the Apostles in the 15. of the Acts Though the Apostles were all infallible in their doctrine yet they could not
as the Hebrew doth and also the Greek and the Latin which two want not the Subjunctive Mood Ans But first he supposeth that which is in question that the Hebrew is to be understood as in the future Secondly other translations with him are fallible save only the Latin therefore the other conclude not Thirdly the translations may be understood in compliance with the Hebrew which is frequent also in the New Testament with the Greek and therefore if the Hebrew may be so construed so may the others by an Hebraism Therefore if our English translation were faulty herein yet must it be otherwise convinced of a fault in this Especially since Fourthly We give good reason why it should thus be construed namely by the Scope Intelligentia dicti sumitur ex scopo loquendi And therefore may we well with Iunius and Tremellius hold our English which in general whatsoever he saies of it from some of our own hath not so many faults in it as Isidor Clarius found in their Latin 8000. I asked him is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome He saies I told you it was not But why then should the other Text about the Scribes and Pharisees by proportion prove their infallibility and not this since we have here the Priest in a singularity if not signanter Well then by his own consent this Text is not sufficient for him for it concerns private Priests and they are as fallible as translations Onely the private Priests may know the sense of the Church better then the sense of Scripture by the translations as he speaks in more words to no more purpose Ans First when we have the sense of the Church are we sure that that sense is true though it be the true sense of the Church is the sense of the Church true this is yet in question There is no question but the sense of Scripture is true whether the sense of the Church is true is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Let the plain places of Scripture in things necessary be compared with the difficulties in the Interpretation of the Trental Definitions and then let them judge whether we had not better stand to Translations which are made by a Nation or approved or else to the opinion of private Priests for though her Doctrine be so carefully published amongst all intelligent men yet this is to be understood materially in the words not formally in the sense And so the Scripture is published amongst all intelligent men in the former way And if the people be not intelligent men too how shall they know whether the true sense of the Doctrine of the Church be communicated to them by learned men But the Priests of the old Law were to direct the people which were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures And the Priests of the new Law doubtless excel those of the old Law This in the substance of it we have had before and have taken away the grounds thereof And besides it is false that the people were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures What saith St. Luke of the Bereans If they examined by the Scriptures what Doctrine St. Paul taught were not they to be directed by their own readings of the Scripture And why did the Jews apply their children to the Law from five years of age And why did St. Paul take notice of Timothy to be trained up in the Scriptures from his childhood and why is the man said to be blessed who amongst other things meditates in the Law day and night Is this to be understood onely of the Priests 2. Therefore though they went to the Priests in doubtful cases yet not for ordinary knowledg in things necessary therefore this is not compared ad idem to our case Thirdly the Priests were bound to direct the people by the Law were they not To the Law and to the Testimonies And not by Tradition So are the Priests of the new Law as he calls them to direct the people by the Scripture not by Tradition or determinations of the Church unless according to Scripture Therefore his question of the case in a matter of doubt which he compares his proceeding in with the old way of the Jews Numb 6. comes not home to our business and therefore we may send it home again and yet not for fear of not being able to answer what he is not willing to urge that when in the upshot the question should be drawn up to the High Priest he who would not hear him was deservedly put to death Deut. 17. He leaves this for us to take down our selves he will not apply it and herein he does discreetly fearing it may be least it should be said that that which he would seem to have referred to the High Priest for final judgment should indeed be referred to the Judge contradistinctly spoken of and by the Syriack disjunctively to the Priests and Levits And 2. I hope the High Priest at Rome doth not undertake a sentence in causes of blood And thirdly in that case there was contempt thou shalt take away the evil it is not said errour and analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori analogato and also ver 12. this is intimated that man that will do presumptuously Fourthly Suppose it had been referred to the High Priest for sentence final this might be extraordinary in a Typical respect to Christ And they know the rule Extraordinaria non trahuntur in regulam We cannot make a rule of extraordinaries And yet also was not the High Priest quatenus talis Infallible as appears in the condemnation of Christ as I told them Now he would distinguish by saying The Jewish Church erred not The true High Priest without whom there is no true representative Church erred not Cajaphas was not the true High Priest the other true High Priest was Christ Prety sport So the Roman Church never erreth because Christ is the true Head but then the Pope should not be true High Priest nor true Head for so Caiaphas and he must be compared in relation to Christ May we not almost think that our Adversary is within a little put to his shifts For Christ was in being I hope and had declared himself the true Messias and yet he said the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair then we are bound to do all whatsoever is said to us without a true High Priest 2. How many Popes were not true Popes and so not true High Priests and then when shall we be certain whether we have a true High Priest and consequently a true Church and consequently that it cannot erre For as absolute infallibility hath it self to particular Faith in any point according to Mr. Knot So absolute certainty of a true Pope hath it self to our knowledg whether it cannot erre Well but he hath told us that he is the true Pope whom the Church shall accept So before but then Caiaphas was the
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
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
take him to mean that Aerius was accounted an heretick for this his opinion exclusively to other opinions in a negative precision and then I say it is not true And to bring it to the test one of his Authors shall be mine St. Austin in his Catalogue of heresies N. 53. He tells us of Philaster that he had made an enumeration of heresies and after him more perfectly Epiphanius and he came after them and he gives us an account of the Arrians from Aerius and several things he does say of him that he was sorry that he was not a Bishop and that having fallen in Arrianorum heresin into the heresie of the Arrians he added also some proper opinions saying that we ought not to pray or offer oblations for the dead and that set fasts were not solemnly to be observed and also that a Presbyter ought not to be by any difference distinguished from a Bishop And some said of him that they were also Eneratites and Apotactites So then the result hereof is this if he could not say Aerius was accounted an heretick onely for this Nay St. Austin doth contradistinguish here heresie to proper opinions So he might be an heretick and not for proper opinions because he had fallen into the heresie of the Arrians yea and some account him an heretick for not distinguishing betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter therefore though his proper opinions were in the judgement of St. Austin heretical yet can it not be said that he was accounted an heretick onely for denying prayers for the dead which was to be shewed by me And if for this opinion disjunctively yet not for denying prayer for the dead in his sense which was to be shewed by him And therefore upon the whole matter we cannot submit to Tradition as infallible because this Tradition in the Roman sense bears false witness of its self nor to the Church if it fallibly pretends infallible Tradition Neither can prudent reason make infallible assent unless the conclusions could be better than their premises Prudent reason were more apt to make Science which they have no cause to be inclinable to neither because it is more opposit to their implicit Faith And he hath no cause therefore to say How many true Beleevers commended in Scripture cannot give so prudent a reason for what they believed Ans All the reason of Faith which can be given if we take Faith in the acception of an infallible assent must be grounded upon infallible principles if any believed upon other account it was not properly Faith and therefore it cannot be said in propriety of the notion which the Romanist also stands upon that they believed Secondly If he takes Faith in a looser sence for an assent upon humane Authority this is not to the question and we can allow Tradition its influence hereunto Thirdly If he means that they could not give a more prudent reason for what they beleived as to others that should ask them a reason of their Faith this we can yield as to universal Tradition that by the inartificial Argument of Authority we can give no more prudent reason than by Tradition But this doth not hit the question whether the testimony private of the Spirit of God makes not a better assurance of Faith to our selves though this is not demonstrable to others that we have this assurance by the Spirit of God Therefore fourthly This will not do the business unless what he saies he proves from Scripture We have urged the contrary in the example of the Beraeans and the term believing in Scripture is not seldom taken not of an internal act of Faith subjective but an external profession of faith objective And so Simon Magus is said to have believed Here he gives us occasion to wish he had done so before as he does here in putting his sense into some form thus Faith being an infallible assent controversies concerning Faith cannot be determined so as to end them effectually but by an infallible living judg who can hear you me be heard by you me but no other than the Church can with any ground be held to be this living Judge therefore she must be held to be the Judge Ans First to the major and we say that it begs the question in two Suppositions First That there is a necessity of controversies in points of Salvation And secondly that it is necessary to Salvation that all controversies though not in points of Salvation should infallibly be determined When these two suppositions are sufficiently made good we shall grant him the major and yet then also that infallible Judge is yet bound to judge by law of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then as to the minor we say secondly This speaks for the Church universal which then according to my Adversaries Principles should alwaies have a true Pope and a true standing General Council or else we should think God had not provided for his Church ad semper Now if it be said some controversies may arise which are not so necessary to be decided in order to Salvation then he destroys his major which goes in part upon that Supposition and so in this he is one of us Therefore thirdly We can retort his Argument mutatis mutandis Faith being an infallible assent requires an infallible Authority But the Church is not yet proved to have an infallible Authority therefore it must be the Scripture Fifthly If he means his infallible Living Judge of the Roman Church we deny that this Judge will explicate all doubts for how hath it ended all controversies in the Trent Council Indeed that Council hath made more about the sense of ambiguous definitions and therefore though his major proposition were true de posse which yet we deny upon the former considerations yet we were to seek de velle and then should we be never a whit the nearer And as touching that Text whereby he would prove that the Bible cannot end all controversies because it cannot end the controversie about it with the Arrians these three are one We say first in ingenuity he needed not to have taken notice of it Secondly We should not by right have disputed the subject of the question whether this or that be Scripture or not Our dispute is about the predicates of scripture Thirdly the Arrians were sufficiently condemned by another Text as before and therefore there is no such necessity of the question Fourthly We rather believe the Church than the Arrian herein But let it be put to the pinch and there were more Faith required in it than the matter afforded can the Church determin it by her own Authority infallibly It not why doth he raise the dust If it can why is it not formally done Therefore either this Text hath not given necessary occasion to an infallible Judge or the infallible Judge hath deceived us in not taking the occasion And therefore to put his other discourse into a shorter and better forme
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
the Apostles was it not Then nothing hinders but that it may be communicated to every of the Popes successively which yet it may be he declines the affirmation of And if it be not communicated to every of the Preists how shall the people be secured from errour by them so as they cannot erre But if they do say infallible assistance is communicated to any immediately then may they see reason for what I said that infallible assistance is immediate or if all infallible assistance be not imediate let them shew another species of infallible assistance To me this argument is good Apostolical assistance was immediate infallible assistance is Apostolical therefore infallible assistance is immediate No question is made of the proposition Nor can they make any doubt of the assumption because they urge as much assistance to the Church now as is Apostolical Therefore had my Adversary reason to interpret me of such infallible assistance which needs no instructions for I know no infallible assistance that doth as appeares by the argument Neither doth his following Instance of the Apostolical Council in the fifteenth of the Acts evince the contrary Though their determinations were not immediately inspired in regard of time or of debate Yet since this debate was not to them necessary how can this make a new species of infallible assistance Likely therefore this Council was in this sort managed by them to be a precedent and example to other Councils which should not have infallible assistance to determin presently and prophetically as soon as the question is proposed And if those who have infallible assistance do use discourse this doth not conclude an infallible assistance which is not immediate He that can prove the creation of the world by principles of Scripture in way of Faith or in order to Faith may prove the same conclusion also by principles of reason in order to science But then it is said in the preface it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Ans To this I say fine praejudicio melioris sententiae that these words do not cogently inferr an infallible assistance of proper name actuated for they may bear that account in respect to the discourse they made by the effects of the Holy Ghost and former declarations And this may appear by that of St. Paul 1. Cor. 17. vlt. she is happier if she so abide according to my judgment and I think also that I have the spirit of God This judgment was not given by infallible assistance because by no inspiration and yet also it doth refer to the spirit of God And according to this proportion might be said it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us and yet those conclusions might not proceed from the Holy Ghost by way of infallible assistance And so farr in other Councils the definitions may be said to be by the Holy Ghost as they are drawn out of principles of Scripture which the Holy Ghost did inspire the Pen-men of it in Yea 2. Since the meeting of them in that Council was but upon convenience in case of Scandal what such necessity was there for that infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost So then let them take it how they will either those determinations were not made by them who were infallible by an infallible assistance and then is not this instance to their purpose or if it was then are they to prove equall assistance to all General Councils otherwise extraordinaries make no species And I am sure the Trent Council hath not credited such assistance as Stapleton and Bellarmin would claim from the Apostolical Council to all General Councils N. 27. Here he would make up the breach which was made upon his strong hold for infallibility in Councils by that place of St. Athanasius as holding the consubstantiality of the Son of God to be the word of God upon the Authority of the Council This was slighted He would repair it but it will not stand That Text upon which the Nicene Council builded their determination is made good ch 2. num 4. In the judgment of the Council it did more then probably determin the Controversie And if he thinks otherwise he doth not believe the Council and therefore not their infallibility His discourse is nothing He cannot determin it Gods word with relation to a Text probable in Scripture therefore he doth it with relation to the infallibility of the Councils authority Well is here all then turne the tables He cannot determin it Gods will with relation to the infallibility of the Councils Authority therefor he did it with relation to the infallible Authority of Scripture Doth he say that the Council holdes it upon account of their Authority or of the Scripture then which is it more likely it should be held upon The Church or the Scripture But let them speake thus when the question is granted Another answer of mine he doth as good as confess that St. Athanasius did not hold it upon the Council because he held it before Here he distinguisheth indeed He held it so in order to himself who was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the antient doctrin of the Church yet in order to others c. Ans He was not Pope was he And yet St. Basil speaks so highly of him as if he had spoken so of the Pope we should have heard of it but if he was not Pope what have we to do to the holding it in order to others He was quoted for his own judgment was he not Then this distinction is impertinent And besides if he was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the antient doctrine of the Church he was convinced that their doctrine was conformable to the true sense of Scripture if not why should he say that the Council urged Scripture to the Arrians if he was then he held it before upon that account Then again he toucheth upon the Council of Ariminum saying that I contend that Council as well to be believed for it self as the Council of Nice and you think c. Ans what I spake by way of interrogation why not is not yet answered by him in the reason of it He wonders that I should urge this Council in way of compare to the contrary But this gives no satisfaction as to my reason that exceptions it seemes were not so availeable against the Council because St. Austin made no mention of them but referred the point betwixt them to Scripture This Council of Ariminum was not so esteemed as the rest but what then from whence did this disesteem proceed from the illegality it seems no for then St. Austin had had a plea against it without waving the Authority of the Nicene Council And surely St. Austin had a very mean esteem of the Authority even of the Nicene Council if having a just exception against the Council of Ariminum he would not pleade it and so bring in the Authority of the Nicene
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
Faith in the Gospel And this is illustrated by the Samaritanes beleeving Christ through the testimony of the woman but when they came to Christ and saw him They said unto the woman we believe no more for thy saying for we have heard and seen that he indeed is the Saviour of the world the Christ John 4.42 So Saint Austin might be moved by the voyce of the Church to give an ear to the Truth of the Gospel and yet was settled in the Beleef of it from its self by the Spirit of God When he did beleeve the immediate cause of his Divine Faith was from the Gospel by the Spirit of God although before he did beleeve he was moved to think well of the Gospel by the authority of the Church So he did not belive the Gospel by the authority of the Church as a Theological principle but as an outward mean and help thereunto For the authority of the Church could not by its testimony of the Gospel make it properly credible because the testimony of the Church is to be made true by it And if it be not true in it self then the testimony is false So that before we know whether the Gospel be true we know not whether the testimony of the Church be true As also we cannot tell how to beleeve that the Church should alwayes give a true testimony as you suppose in every point but by the Scripture And therefore there is no ground or rest for Faith but in the Scripture Since if we beleeve the Church because the Scripture gives testimony of it and then the Scripture because the Church gives testimony thereof we must first beleeve the Scripture before we beleeve the Church Therefore we must terminate our Faith in the Scripture and if we do beleeve it beleeve it for it self it being the first credible Fifthly Look to the end of that chapter and there after he had disputed subtilly he doth conclude soberly But God forbid that I should not beleeve the Gospel and then concludes against his Adversary from thence as the rule of the difference betwixt them for Beleeving that saith he I do not find how to beleeve you c. And that the Scripture is the Rule he went by you may see in his 32. chapter against Cresconius whether let me if you please refer you for brevitie None can overcome S. Austin but S. Austin And therefore I need not say any thing to the second testimony which is taken out of him against Cresconius Yet observe Although of this there is no example certainly brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also we keep the Truth of the Holy Scriptures in this when we do that which hath pleased the whole Church saith he Namely in that which is not a ruled case in Scripture as the question was about the Truth of the Baptisme of Hereticks It seems then if it had been determined in Scripture there had been an end of it that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive saith he And this property absolute belongs to it not to humanitie Whosoever doth fear to be deceived by the obscurity of the Question may ask counsel touching it of the Church whom without doubt the Scripture it self doth shew saith he First here is an obscure question about practice so are not all points Some are clear in Scripture and yet the Propsition is universall that we must believe every thing by the proposal of the Church as if we must beleeve nothing but what the Church defineth and whatsoever it doth define that we must beleeve Secondly VVe should ask counsel onely which doth not suppose an absolute determination Thirdly which Church the Scripture doth without doubt shew then the Church is to be proved by Scripture again And without doubt doth shew but doth not shew to be alwayes without doubt and infallible Fourthly he afterwards goeth about to prove it against him by testimonies out of Scripture But behold yet again in a third Testimony of Saint Austin No peaceable man will be against the Church Answer Saint Austin is again welcome I say so too and shall anon end with the whole Sentence And yet once more in a fourth Testimony Saint Austin It is of most insolent madness to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth VVe answer VVe say so too in things of indifferency which every particular Church hath power in for it self and the Catholicke Church for all And yet all Catholick practices are not now observed by the Church of Rome as for one Infant Communion But according to the Father if the Authority of the Scripture doth prescribe which of these is to be done it is not to be doubted that we should do so as we read In such things then which are defined by Scripture we know what we should do intuitively to Scripture without asking counsel of the Church As certainly I may believe that Jesus is the Christ that he that believeth shall be saved immediately out of Scripture and not upon the Churches proposal And now I have delivered you from your fear of my rejecting the Fathers Surely we should love the Fathers though they were our Enemies and we have no reason to fear them when they are our Friends Therefore if you please to give me leave so far let me say as Nilus the Archbishop of Thessalonica as the Book bears title said in his first Book about the Primacy of the Pope or the difference between the Greek and Latin Churches It is very unreasonable that you who have not the Fathers for your examples should of your selves understand that which is better and we who have the Fathers should not Afterwards in your Reply you come to upbraid me with Devotion to modern men But this Belief of yours concerning me is not well grounded we delight not our selves in being Servants to Men in matters of Faith What is true we like in any what is not true we do not like in any In Divine writings we take all for there we consider not so much what is said as who saith in Humane Writings we pick for we consider not who speaketh but what is said agreeable to the Scriptures Therefore with them we deal as Saint Austin with Saint Cyprians authority in the forenamed chapter against Cresc What we find in them which is agreeable to the Canonical Scripture we receive with commendation what doth not with their leaves we leave But to make as short work with them as I can I answer first as many testimonies and more clear might be found in them against you I hope if those testimonies be for you let one be set against the other And if you say I should be moved by them because they are ours I answer Secondly If they agree with the sense of the Fathers you cannot condemn them if they do not agree we do Thirdly It is possible to be Even with you in the same kind by a retaliation of Pontificians against you But Fourthly I could
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
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
use my Liberty for your good If you had a mind to leave nothing in my reply of moment unanswered you would have followed me as a disputant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you would have opposed distinction to some incident arguments for professedly the answerer is not to dispute You would have given me answer to answer interpretation to testimonies with shewing either their impertinency or invaliditie And that excuse of yours lest you should be too long is surely too short to cover you That is not long whereof nothing can be abated as he said and that is my excuse And surely your Treatise is too long not only by your many repetitions which swell your paper but would have been too long had it been lesse it is too long by it self Who ever answered a rejoynder with a Treatise Shall I say that by your form of a Treatise it may seem that you have more mind to treat then to fight I am loath to be so bold neither doth it become my spirit to tell you that you do not stand your ground but you do not neither conclude contradictorily if your Treatise did prove that the authoritie of your Church is the ground of Faith in the Divinitie of the Scripture and in case of Controversie For your first paper spoke universally my Answer denied it and now you would prove it if you could particularly If you would conclude contradictorily to me you should have concluded in the same quantitie affirmatively to my negative This you here seem not to intend yet in other parts of your Treatise you would contend it And in the end you would arm your Treatise against me as if there were no difference betwixt Positive and Oppositive Divinity And this you doe by references but you should not have put the suit to reference without my consent So much for the Preface After the Preface you come to the Proof of the Title You mean the Title of this Paper which surely needs not to be proved because it is not delivered by way of Affirmation but of Disquisition ANd as for the Similitude you say of St. Anselme we like it very well For if the Tables be turned it doth very aptly belong to you who if you have not with a Roman contention for Masterie pulled out the Eyes of Men yet have put out the Light not allowing them the use of the Scripture you shut up the people in Darknesse and will not let them see the Sun of Righteousnesse in his own Orb of Scripture for fear it may be he should not seem now to rise but to go down in Rome and instead hereof you leave Men to walk by the Light of the Pope whom one compared to the Sun as the Emperour to the Moon Christ saith Search the Scriptures you say not yea you take away the use of all humble seeking of God for the knowledge of Truth because you have said that we must all submit our assents to the determinations of the Church So you see how your Opinion is practically impious and is disagreeable to your own directions For you say if they should seek of God they should find Onely you say we should set all passions prejudice aside with a calm humble mind beg of God to give us this grace of seeking truth Surely this Qualification of our addresse to God for the finding of Truth is very good and I would it were as well practised as delivered but let the world judge who is like to be most wanting in this Devotion and to exceed in passion and prejudice He who affirms all to be delivered infallibly by the Church or he that searcheth in Scripture particular Truths Infallibility pretended easily makes any man passionate against difference unlesse indeed he could make it good And he that is infallible is in right capacitie sure to have a necessary prejudice against different Opinions Neither since the times of the Apostles hath humilitie been usually seen to â—â—â—p companie with infallibilitie not that he who is most humble is not most likely not to erre but that he who saith he cannot erre is most likely not to be humble but as for prejudice by Education which you speak of also may I not as well retort it upon you I think in some respects it is not so applicable to me Indeed we do not inherit Religion as Lands but if when we come to abilitie of discerning which your Religion in its Principles will never let you come to we see good cause for our Religion Surely we have no reason to leave it because it was our Fathers although we doe not embrace it because it was our Fathers The relation it hath to our Ancestours hath no more moment in it then the Church may have upon you namely to be a considerable motive not to be your ultimate resolution thus for the first number of your proof 〈◊〉 that it is 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 even with you for the similitude by a saying of Tertullian in his Apologet at the end of the 9. chapter Caetiâ—â—s dâ— species facile concurrunt ut qua non vident qua sunt videre viatantur quae non â—â—nt So while you do not see what exceptions there are against you you see more see what are not exceptions against us and our way of Faith But therefore in your second Number you will prove your way by Scripture We now come to it And your Text is Esay the 35. from the fourth Verse to the ninth by parcels Say to the faint-hearted Take courage and fear not behold God himselfe will come and save you then shall the eyes of the Blind be lightned and the eares of the Deaf be opened and there shall be a path and a way and it shall be called an Holy way and this shall be unto you a direct way so that fools cannot erre by it Thus you order the Testimony To this we say 1. Whether it be intended by the Holy Ghost to respect the Primitive Church Christian mystically through the Jewish we cannot be certain but sure we may be that in the Letter it doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from captivity And therefore it may be you â—earing that this should be taken notice of do wisely leave out those passages which may seem to incline the Text to that sense and you take only that which you think is for your turn So you know who would have deceived Christ by omitting that part of Scripture which was against him although you will not allow to the people the Liberty of Scripture yet let us have all for our life in the dispute And it there be a mystical sense here yet you know the rule of Divines which is also not denyed by yours that mystical Divinity is not argumentative unlesse namely the mystical sense be expressed in Scripture which you are here to demonstrate 2. If it be understood of the Primitive Church through the Jewish as Saint Hierome indeed doth comment upon it
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
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
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
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
that the invisible Church shall not perish which is true although the visible Church be under a possibilitie to erre since every errour is not destructive of salvation In the 25. Number you tell me what you have said before but that you have given me some additional Testimonies in the supplement of the last which have their answer without repetition Onely you no where I think find that Saint Jerome did receive all those books which you receive for Canonical and for those Authours which held the Consubstantiality of the Son and those several properties of the Holy Trinity you will give me leave with judicious men to suspect Eusebius Beleeve your Cardinal herein Bellarmin in his De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis p. 94.5 6. where he brings the attestation of Saint Athanasius and Saint Jerome to the same purpose and Saint Jerome calls him not onely an Arrian but the Prince of the Arrians sometimes sometimes the Ensign-bearer Yea the 7. Synod he sayes and the Apostolical Legats rejected his authority as being an Arrian Heretique as he saies And as for Austins expression that the relying on the Church's authority is the most true and inviolable Rule of Faith you refer it to your 16. Number and there referre me to the 13. chapter of the first book Contra Cresconium which I cannot see there If it should be so disertly yet this must be understood respectively to those cases wherein the Scripture doth not clearly passe the Verdict in which the authority of the Church is the best rule we can then have as towards practice But this in his Opinion doth not absolutely leave us to follow Tradition of the Church in points of Faith unlesse he contradicts himself as you shall see at the end But you are afraid of want of Number to make noise because you say I said you had no other Testimony but Saint Austins I did not say that you had none but his absolutely but you had none but his that I could see of those you produced Neither him indeed if you please to tell us what you see Therefore we shall look over your reinforcing his and the main testimony for your cause in my answer whereunto I see yet no place for amendments or abatement I said if you consider the whole tenâ—â—r of the chapter you may be inclined to think that it came from him in some heat of dispute and methinks I may think so still Your men are wont to answer evidences of the Fathers which are against them when they please that such passages came from them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and surely we may have that liberty when there is such occasion given for us to interpret them as here if we consider how he was displeased with himself for a former respect to that Epistle and also if we take notice of his short returns of discourse in this Epistle and also if we mark his check and correcting and taking up himself towards the end of the chapter with an absit Sed absit ut ego Evangelio non credam And if this answer doth not weigh with you then I gave you another that this might be spoken of himself not in sensu composito as then but in sensu diviso as in order to that time when he was a Manichee himself To which purpose I told you it was familiar to him and other writers of that part of the world to expresse a tense more then past by the imperfect and the sense is that when he was a Manichee he would not have believed the Gospel but that the authority of the Church had moved him to it One place of this usage I found to be in a chapter you quoted in his De Predestinatione Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 1. s 14. Qui igitur opus est ut eorum ferutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haresis â—riretur non habuerunt necessitatem in hâc difficili ad solvendum quastione versari quod procul dubio facerem si respondere talibus cogerentur where you have the Imperfect Tense for the Tense more past facerent for fecissent and so the other So in his first Book of Retract cap. 51. Profecto non dixissem si jam â—uns essem literis Sucris ita eruditus ut recolerem where you have essem for fuissem and so the other And also by the way let me observe somewhat from those two places towards the main question besides the use of them in the way of Criticisme For by the former you have the reason why the Tradition of the Church in Doctrines received will not make an end of our differences since the questions were not then started and also by the second you may observe that we cannot swallow all that was said by Saint Austin without chewing since he sayes himself that had he been so well instructed he would not have said this and that And indeed his books of Retractations are books against you and do conclude wholly that we are not to take whatsoever the Fathers wrote to be as true as Gospel Yea some such books of Retractations all of them might have made as some think Origen did although they are perished as to us But the answers which I gave you to that passage of Saint Austin will not content you Therefore you endevour to shew at large that they will not serve You say unlesse he will stand to that ground he must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary What ground do you mean VVhat that he was moved by the Churches Infallible Authority as you would conclude at every turn No supposing him not to speak in aestu Sermonis yet what he said against his Adversary was reasonable without urging the Infallible authority For the consent of the Church might be considered by him as a condition towards the reception of any doctrine and yet not to be that which he built his Faith upon as upon an Infallible ground You may know the Causa sine qua non is not a cause although such a thing be not without it yet is not this the cause thereof And therefore make what you can of the place it will not afford you a firm foundation if his authority could do it You say that this is his first argument to shew that his Adversary by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle could prove nothing against those who as yet have not believed the Gospel So you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then Because the Adversary can prove nothing by Scripture to those that deny it therefore Saint Austin must infer that the authority of the Church is infallible and he must believe the Gospel upon no other ground VVhat consequence is this as if because Saint Austins adversary cared not for the judgement of the Church therefore we must be guilty of that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath so much wronged the Church as nothing more This
for your use Take it by it selfe and it will come to this that a clear place in the Gospel would perswade him to lessen his opinion of the authority of the Catholicks then he would hold clear Scripture above or against the authority of the Church then their authority is not in his judgement Infallible or else Infallible authority of the Church may be opposite to Infallible authority of the Scripture and one in his opinion of them the Scripture is more Infallible then the other the Church which is incongruous for in Infallibility there is no degree no more then in Truth And if you say that the Scripture yet may be more Infallible to him this spoyls all your cause for you say you go to Faith by the Church because that way is more plain c manifestâ— Therefore you hasten me from this passage to shew me what will follow But what do you think will follow I pray note it well their authority being weakned and shewed once fallible now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel And why so because upon the authority of these Catholicks I had believed the Gospel So you But do you see how you interpose your glosse in your Parenthesis thus their authority being once weakned and shewed once fallible Do you imagine that we can neglect or overlook this your glossall inference or opposition and shewed once fallible as if there were no authority but that which is Infallible and there were no weakning of authority but to make it fallible Authority may stand with Fallibility for we grant Authority to the Church distinguishing it from Infallibility And if you had done so you had saved many a wound which your Church hath got by that unfortunate word Infallibility as one of your own men happily confessed Neither therefore doth it follow that the authority of the Catholicks being weakned and shewed once fallible he could not at all believe the Gospel because by the authority of the Catholicks he had believed the Gospel but he could not then believe the Gospel by that inductive and motive of the authority of the Church for the first Christians believed the Apostles severally without the authority of the Church Yea if upon that consideration he could not have believed the Gospel their authority by whom he did believe it being weakned yet doth it not from hence flow necessarily that when he did believe the Gospel he did believe it upon an Infallible authority because although he could not believe the Gospel without it yet might he account it as towards belief but a condition not a cause of his Faith And this you must have or else you do not contradict Whatsoever is necessary to an effect is not the cause of it although whatsoever is a cause thereof is necessary to it Therefore that is not so which again you say that the ground of his beleef in the Gospel was their infallible authoritie as not only these but also the next words shew manifestly When will you by your proof put the infallible proposal of the Church out of question when shall we have any more then supposals of it Let us see your next words Wherefore if in the Gospel there be nothing found that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus then I will beleeve the Catholicks rather then you but if you shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle then neither will I beleeve the Catholicks nor thee Why so I will not beleeve the Catholicks because they whose Doctrine I thought infallible have lyed to me concerning the Manichaeaus But I will not beleeve thee even when thou citest clear Scripture for of this case he speaketh and why so because thou dost cite me that Scripture to which Scripture I had now beleeved upon their authority who have lyed to me So you And what now from hence can you gather more then from the former passage of the same nature unlesse you did make good another Parenthetical supposition whose Doctrine I thought infallible This is not in Saint Austin but comes from your own private Spirit And therefore if you will not be ruled by our Spirit because of the former exception to the contrary surely we have no cause to be overperswaded by your judgement without any reason for it Secondly May you not from hence take notice that what I said of Saint â—ustin that in the Testimony here he might speak as in some heat of Dispute For can we think that Saint Austin had such a soul as to say soberly and categorically that he would not beleeve clear Scripture which was cited by any one because Catholicks had told him otherwise Did Saint Austin in your conceit differ in judgement from your Aquinas or did your Aquinas differ from Saint Austin Consider then what your Aquinas saith in his Summes the first Part the first question and the eight Art Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis facta qui Canonicos libros scripserunt for our Faith doth rely upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books but not upon the revelation if any other was made to other Doctours Nay he confirms it by Saint Austin out of his 19. Epist a little after the beginning Solis enim Scripturarum libris c. For I have learned to give this honour onely to the Books of Scripture which are called Canonical as to believe most firmly that none of the Authours thereof did erre in writing any thing but others I so read that whatsoever holynesse or learning they are excellent in I do not think true therefore because they thought so or wrot so Compare then this passage with the other or the other with this and then judge whether either he did not differ from himself in his Principles or did not speak the former as a disputant Thirdly Let me note whereas you do rightly translate Saint Austin as speaking of his beleef by the Catholicks in the tense more then past you give your self occasion to think that he meant the main passage non crederem not of himself then but as before a Manichee And your argument which you produce a little after against this last answer because he speaks here of beleeuing the Acts of the Apostles and beleeving it by a necessary consequence because he hath already beleeved the other Canonical books upon the same authority of the Church doth not overthrow my answer because you say your self that this book of the Acts he did beleeve by consequence by the authority of the Church he was at first moved to beleeve the other books and therefore by consequence he did beleeve the book of the Acts because the Catholick authority did in like manner commend both Scriptures The speaking here in the present doth not derogate from my answer because the beleeving by consequence supposeth an act of beleeving antecedent Also Fourthly note that here he said the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
besides how many may dissemble what they see Who so blinde as he that will not see If the Chinites say they onely themselves see with both eyes those of Europe with one eye and the rest of the world with neither surely those of Europe who will not see are blinde of both eyes The Council of Trent according to them an Oecumenicall Council if they could see better things not cleare why did they not in all points declare first what was to be held and then what was to be anathametized And if they were more like to see what is cleare how came they to abandon the use of the cup Nay how came they to establish a transubstantiation seing our Saviour after consecration said plainly St. Mark the 14. the 25. I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine Was his blood the fruit of the Vine But sixthly to make use of his disjunction places are either cleare or not namely places of Scripture if not cleare no absosolute necessity of a generall Council so as no salvation to be had without clearing the difficulty if clear what need then of a Council we may be saved without some knowledge we cannot believe without infallibility Seventhly let them reconcile this necessity of a Council to the sayings of Paul the fourth who said he had absolute authority that for himself he had no need of instruction because he knew Christ did command that he had no need of a Council for he himself was above all that he could remedie all inconveniences by his own authority as is said of him in the History of Trent the fifth book And therefore my Adversary or the Pope is out All he saies here also for Councils makes no more than a morall assurance which how much it is lesse than the certainty of faith Mr. Knot will tell Indeed he says Again I may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error as I shall shew chap. 4. Yes surely if this could be proved there were no more to be said this principle will beat down to the ground all opposition which an humble soule can make We confesse it when it is proved But surely this is as much in question as any thing else Untill the supposition be grown into a proof we have then yet but prudentiall Arguments to faith And yet we say secondly if he would have been so wise as to have stated it with a judicious moderation thus that we may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error namely as to destroy the foundation that might have been better endured but he hath granted that this will not serve his purpose as Mr. Knot notes he must have the Church secure from any error These Catholicks as they call themselves cannot speake under the forme of universality which is more easily contradicted And we suspend our assent untill the demonstration comes We may not nor ought to know this We ought not for we cannot We cannot but by Scripture For if they say we may know it by the Church it is the question Neither doth he prove our opposition of Councils in their most fundamentall ground upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to sit as Judges c. Num. 8. For first it doth not appeare that all Councils have supposed themselves to sit as Judges with full commission to determine securely all controversies if the terme security be taken securely from all error And if they have not so defined it that they do so sit as Judges or sit as Judges so how shall we according to my Adversaries principles believe it since we are to fetch all truth from the Church in a Council And secondly if all Councils did establish it a Principle we yet expect a reason hereof since neither Pope nor Council have absolute authority nor both to together to bind our belief Yea thirdly the Council of Nice did sit upon as good ground as any other Council but the Council of Nice did examine all things by Scripture so in the History of the Nicene Council prefixed in a Vatican Edition it is said Rebus itaque in utriusque partem jactatis et ad certam Divinarum Scripturarum normam perpensis communi omnium suffragio Arrius et Eusebius damnantur Things being discussed on both sides and weighed and examined according to the certain rule of Divine Scriptures by common consent Arrius and Eusebius are condemned Therefore are not we to look for a Dictatorian sentence but a rationall determination out of Scripture and if we finde this this doth oblige all Christians to conforme to their definitions But fourthly we deny that we are so obliged by such censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven We are not obliged by them neither in themselves nor because they were so held nay also we deny that they were so held to be ratified in Heaven unlesse with this limitation clave non errante Yea again these do not oblige us to conforme our judgement their power respects the outward act Yea again if so Honorius was rightly condemned in the sixth Generall Council therefore was an Heretick yea and Pope Vigelius was an errant Heretick for defending the three chap. against the fifth Councill And the Romanists are bound to think the Condemnation just or the Council to be null And yet that Council thought it self sufficient in authority without and against the Pope and therefore they all differed from my Adversary who saies the Council does not bind without the Popes confirmation He saies further others will tell you divers other opinions you have with Councils But if he would have had me answer for my self he must have told me the particulars Generalia non pungunt and they make no action To distinguish infallibility from their authority is no opposition untill infallibility be infallibly made good And even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils when you charge them with speaking contradictions Ans First credâ—t may be given in sensu diviso to those that may possibly speake contradictions if we meane by credit a morall respect of humane faith but if he meanes credit of faith Divine I then grant it that such credit is not to be given to them which may speake contradictions for how are they then infallible as they must be by my Adversary if they ground faith As was said of the Milisians Non sunt stulti sed possunt stulta facere they are not fools and yet can do foolish things so a Council may be wise and yet may speake foolish things and I may give some credit to them in generall for their wisedome though it be possible for them to say that which includes a contradiction Secondly I may charge Councils with contradictions to one another though not to themselves For
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
from his impropriation of it Yet we will give answer to his own form And as to his major we grant it that whatsoever is necessary to salvation is so far necessary to be believed as it is injoined unto salvation And that proposition of his is clearer than his proof for his reason doth not infer it namely because all are obliged to please God and to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God Ebr. For let the reason be put into form of an argument and then let any one see whether it will be cogent thus all are obliged to please God and to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God therefore his major is true under pain of damnation all are bound to agree c. No one and the other are true but one is not proved to be true by the other that axiom in the scope of it speaks of a faith as to that place onely in this particular that there is a God And therefore doth not this text aptly prove a necessity of interiour assent to all points necessary to be believed for salvation It seems by the compendiousnesse of that text that very few principles are necessary to be believed unto salvation because according to my Adversary we may please God with the belief according to this text which intends but that one main Principle that there is a God and that he is a rewarder of them that dilligently seek him And so this will abate the plea of Mr. Cressy and of my Adversary who contend that there is a great number of things which are necessary to be believed under pain of damnation And if he would extend that text virtually to a necessity of particular perswasion that whatsoever we do is lawfull as if it should have the same sense with that of the Apostle whatsover is not of faith is sin First that is not the meaning of the text And then secondly so it would exceed his purpose which is for points of faith for so it would also have reference to things indifferent unto which the other text is properly applied Well let us see his minor proved He proveth it 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 interiour assent to all points necessary can be assigned but the authority of the Church Well the major of this Syllogism we grant but first how proves he the minor And yet we might also except against the form of it for it should be thus for the minor but there is no infallible authority but the Church and yet so the form is not right neither for the medium is not duly placed But how proves he the minor For this is yet to us the question out of question he may prove what he will if he can make the question proof And therefore lest his minor should appear to be grosly false for he by and by acknowledgeth the Scriptures authority to be infallible and lest that minor as it should be formed should not fully infer the minor of his prosyllogism he shuffles in in the minor of his last more than should be And let me now make use of his principles Without faith it is impossible to please God In all definitions of the Church I cannot have faith Therefore in all definitions of the Church I cannot please God The first proposition is Scripture and a principle which he also useth My second proposition I prove by his proof of his thus An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority The Church is not yet proved to have infallible authority therefore cannot we have infallible assent in the definitions of the Church and by consequent not faith for faith is in the nature of it an infallible assent Then towards the confirmation of his last minor he comes over with the deniall of this property to Scripture The authority of 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 chap. This is begging of the question in the second chap. not in the third if it be there proved but here he affords me then that which is a positive minor to my last Syllogism against him and compleatly it is made by his own principles now infallible assent is not built but upon submission to an infallible authority The Authoritie of Scripture is infallible Therefore Both his own propositions Onely the form of the discourse follows his But notwithstanding its infallible authority he says It doth not give clear texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation So that now all the question seems to be reduced to the debate about the clearness of the texts He seems not to deny the texts in the subject but denies them in the adjunct of clearnesse Ans First if there be texts for all points necessary materially then is that main opinion of the Papists about traditions sunk for since they are said to come in upon way of supply of what is not set down at all in Scripture and yet is necessary to be believed then if all be set down in Scripture but some things not clearly then have we no need of any new matter of traditions but only of traditive Interpretations which what they are and where they are who can tell Secondly if he supposeth more points necessary to salvation than indeed are necessary as they are wont to do then indeed the Scripture doth not afford clear texts for all things necessary in their opinion yea none at all for some of their opinions but as to those things which are really necessary so we deny it The Scripture hath sufficient clearnesse for all things necessary upon due account Thirdly The Councils do give us no other sense of those texts which are not clear in themselves than they are capable of do they No he will say for then they should not declare the sense of Scripture but make it which their greatest Doctors when they are in their sober minds do deny then are we determined in the Controversies by those texts and not by the authority of the Councils The Councils do but rub the glasse that we may see more clearly the sense but it is the sense which decides the point They do not make the way of truth but shew it and therefore the Church is not the High way but the Scripture If they by their discussion and discourse add one degree of claritude to those texts must the causality formal of the assent be attributed to their authority They do but make clear the object the assent of faith is not to the degree of clearnesse but to the object cleared Fourthly what if some of the greatest Doctors do give all this power of explication of ambiguous Scripture to the Pope and
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
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
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
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
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
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
he makes a calumny because he thinks it as impossible for the Pope to say that vices are vertues as if God the Father should say such a thing was a vertue and Christ should preach such a thing was a vice Ans It would do well as he said to use soft words and hard arguments waving therefore his reflexions we say first the calumnie is not in saying of him what he sayes not but in the mis-interpretation how he speaks it And to this we say it is not necessary to be a calumny for it may be spoken of him as it was spoken by him in way of supposition and may be spoken of him to be spoken by him And therefore if it was no calumny in the Cardinall to say so it may be no calumny in me to say of the Cardinall that he said so They will think a notionall supposition makes no slander whosoever be the subject and whatsoever the predicate and therefore if he thinks that I must speak it of Bellarmin slanderously he must also think that Bellarmin might speak it so too Secondly if it were as impossible to suppose any such thing of the Pope as that God should say such a thing is a virtue and Christ should preach it to be a vice Then why hath the Pope such a Council to assist him It is well put into more hands for fear of a defectibilitie in one And if it be said that this was spoken of the Pope only hypothetically to his saying so as being assisted with a Council it is easily answered that this is not the Jesuits opinion that the Pope is infallible onely with a Council And by the way if a Pope be infallible onely with a Council why did Pope Clement say that a Council was always good but when it medled with the Popes authority Is there any point more considerable than the Popes authority And is he onely infallible in a Council and yet is he afraid that this point should be meddled with in a Council Then he must suspect his own cause in their opinion Well and can God err or can Christ err in precepts and particular judgements as Bellarmin confesseth in the same chap. it is not absurd that the Pope should err And can God or Christ err in commanding any thing unprofitable or under too heavy a punishment It is not absurd to say this of the Pope although it belongs not to subjects to doubt of this but simply to obey as he says in the same chap. Nay if to speak so of the Pope as Bellarmin says in way of supposition were a slander then Bellarmin slanders the Pope also in his second b. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 29. Itaque sicut licet resistere Pontifici c. Therefore as it is lawfull to resist the Pope invading our body so is it lawfull to resist him invading souls and troubling a Commonwealth and much rather Si Ecclesiam destruere niteretur if he should endeavour to destroy the Church Thus he Then he shall defend me therefore may I be clear of slander against Bellarmin or he guilty of slander against the Pope But then thirdly put case I account it no slander against the Pope to affirm a possibility in him to say that vice is virtue The Consequence I hope is good ab esse ad posse he hath done so therefore is it possible To command disobedience to Christ under colour of obedience to him is to say really that vice is virtue and this the Pope hath done in the injunction of his dimi-Communion as before And let them before they presse this slander any further first help Bellarmin to purge the Pope of all those errors in faith and determinations affirmative against Gods precepts negative in point of practice And when they have done this then we shall be afraid to suppose a possibility if we cannot find further instances of fact And therefore they shall not scare us with a charge of calumnie untill they have strongly asserted such an impossibility Indeed impossibilis conditio facit negativam we cannot err in obedience if we cannot err in commanding but that he cannot err in commands is yet sub judice and not himself All Protestants do say as I noted that the Scripture Num. 19. and onely the Scripture is left us by Christ for our Judge to end all Controversies Ans This is no genuine account of our opinion They do not assert the Scripture to be a Judge in formalities They say there is no need of such a Judge as Papists would have since all necessaries unto faith and hope and charity are sufficiently delivered in matter and form without any exigence of such a Judge And in this they agree with all right Catholicks not with Hereticks as he would have it And Hereticks he may know as before have urged the Church for them and St. Austin hath dealt with Hereticks by Scripture and therefore if Hereticks use the Scripture must we not since Hereticks urge the Church by his argument they must not they know the rule Duo cum idem faciunt non est idem It is one thing to use Scripture for the proof of some points and another thing to say Scripture and onely 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 Ans This is all I have from him in account to five or six answers I gave him to the charge against me for using Scripture as Hereticks do Thus easily he puts me off Well to this put-off we say first that this distinction of his imports a confession of his to use Scripture in some points then is not the proposall of the Church necessary to all points and this is some abatement of his former universality Secondly those points he allows the use of Scripture in are necessary as was intimated before since Bellarmin doth own the Scripture for a rule also And if Scripture doth deliver some points necessary quatenus taeles then all necessaries as before neither need these necessaries be many as Mr. Chillingworth hath observed and Tertullian also in effect Certa sunt in paucis The rule of faith used by the Fathers was not numerous in particulars Thirdly we say not that the Scripture is a proper Judge much lesse for all Controversies And therefore if they will stand to what is here said by them and withdraw that which is not duly said of us let them take the Counters and cast up the difference betwixt us They allow the Scripture in some points we allow the Church in some points they allow the Scripture I suppose in some points necessary we allow the Church much in points not necessary If they would extend some points necessary to all points necessary which are not many we not upon condition but freely would give the Church due reverence in points of question and thus there would be soon an end of the Controversies betwixt us and in
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
or Bull yet is there nothing in Hebrew for the Pope or his Bull whether then the perfidious Iews had honesty enough to deliver to us true Copies with true Points and Vowels Let their Bellarmin be judge in the former Chap. And yet moreover surely it is more probable that if the Points were first put by the Jews to the Consonants at the well of Tilerias yet they were not put by the perfidious Iews if he took it for the unbelieving Jews but by the believing Jews But yet my Adversary must needs object an expression of the most Reverend and Learned Arch-Bishop of Armah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the variety of Sections in the New Testament which Cressy also takes notice of But as to this upon supposition this concerns Christians Secundum rationem generalem and therefore one would think that we should not be bound to give an account of it as to an Heathen But so the Roman adversaries must order their attains that either there must be no Christian Faith but theirs onely Secondly those various Sections do they make any substantial change in the matter of sence or any contrariety to the Analogie of other Texts or not If not what can be the consequence from hence to the Church If so then how can the right reading be restored by the Church but through the Holy Ghost Well then in a Councel also or not if in a Councel how was the Church herein assured for the first three hundred years if without a Councel then why is infallibility tied to a Councel confirmed by a Pope as my Adversary sayes Thirdly we have no reason to depend upon the Roman Church for our security in such variety of readings since we have the more variety for them and in Manuscripts too as Dr. Iames asserts in his corruption of Fathers Councils and Scriptures so this comes to the Proverb Ovem lupo commisisti But fourthly they make a very ill Argument for themselves for if it be so uncertain which is not onely a true Translaâ—ion but also which is the true Original then how shall we be certain whether the Church be infallible since the An sit of this point must finally be determined by Scripture Fiftly we may be certainly as certain as they for we have the true Original from them or not if we have then we are as well as they if not any Original from them then how do we depend upon them for the Christian Faith as they If we had the Original Language from them and not the true then they deceived us by ignorance or worse And how should we be bound to believe in them then as our infallible Guides Sixtly That admirable Prelate did me the Honour himself to tell me upon an application to him that as for the variety of Sections they were observed by him to be of divers sorts and some inconsiderable and those of any moment not so many as there will be such danger to have them appear for they are intended to be Printed with the great Bible A touch we have also in this number of St. Matthews Gospel but this hath been agitated before But yet I cannot but observe how confidently these Romanists speak As for the new Testament St. Matthews Gospel was originally written in Hebrew that original is quite lost as if it were as sure as Gospel that it was written originally in Hebrew not preached onely but written in Hebrew and also that it was quite lost if lost we may or may we not think upon the rule in the Trent History he is to be suspected to be Author of a mischief who hath the interest in it So then we see nothing to the contrary but that yet the term infallibility is an unfortunate term for it loseth at all turnes Neither will they be able to get off clearely from all inextricable difficulties whatsoever they say of us N. 36. For first they suppose that they receive the vulgar translation upon as good authority as those who received the first Original copies And have they no better certainty for the first original copies Then they take a course to make Christianity ridiculous but this they will say for the honour of their Church Ridente turcâ nec dolente judaeo let Christianity crack so Rome stands So then by this principle of theirs if the vulgar Latin hath no certain credibility neither the original copies as if the original copies had came onely from Rome as the vulgar latin but for this latin Bible we are referred to the fourth Chap. Yet here he gives me a perstriction for objecting to them Isidor Clarius correcting of it in so many places If Isidor Clarius in any one title importing Faith and Manners differs from what we receive upon this infallible authority we have nothing to do with him And is this all But first he needs not make an if of it for if he will peruse but his Preface he shall find him to profess that he used a great deal of moderation lest offence should be taken and that it might not seem to be a new Translation and yet he saith Loca tamen ad octo millia annotata atque a nobis emendata sunt eight thousand places have been marked and mended by me And do none of them think you respect faith and manners Secondly Me thinks they are warping and coming off again to the former distinction that the Church could not be proposer of any damnative error importing Faith and Manners And this in Mr. Knot 's opinion as before spoiles all So then the Church might erre in this translation from the Originals but not in things importing Faith or Manners Thirdly Do they then think there was any fault at all in the Original Copies which the first Church received If so then there must be faults in Original Scripture If not now can they receive the vulgar Translation with an equal Faith of infalibility as they do the Original Copies Let Cardinal Bellarmin rebate somewhat that high Conceit of the Authentiknesse of the vulgar Latin which they know was but a product of a Council in his 26. de Author Concil the 12. ch Let them from thence consider whether the Scriptures are not to be preferred before the Decrees of Councels in many regards where he will tell them at the latter end of the Chap. that that of Gregory reverencing the four Councils General as the four Gospels is to be qualified illud sicut sonare similitudinem non aequalitatem that that As doth signifie similitude not equality indeed as Iustin Martyr saies of Plato That what he had said well in things Divine he doth mingle and confound with contrariety for fear of Mars hill lest he should suffer for it as Socrates so this the Cardinal doth seem to retract in the following words for fear of the seven hills as to equality of infalibility but yet in Iudiciis particularibus in judiciis morum quae non toti Ecclesiae sell
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
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
is under a command and express precept St. Matth. 22.37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind And this cannot be moulded into the notion of a counsel for thus Christ answers to the question in the ver before what is the great Commandement of the Law And also in the ver after he saies this is the first and great Commandement Now to do thus is most perfect charity and therefore what we can do is comprehended under all that is commanded yea if the law requires more then we can do according to ordinary measure of grace then we cannot do more than the law requires now this the law requires and not only semper but ad semper as to the internal duty of love And who is there in all the world that loves the Lord alwaies with all his heart with all his soul with all his mind And therfore Gods law is not to be cut short that it may be made even with our ability present Neither doth the text named by him out of St. Iohn prove obedience to the law possible to us in the way we may keep Gods commandements in generale though not all as we ought as we are said to keep the way though sometimes we transgresse We may keep the commandements as a man keeps a Castle against the enemies he keeps it till he be beat out of it he keeps it against forsaking it but he doth not keep it so as not to be overcome he keeps them as to the purpose of his mind he doth not keep them absolutly as to all acts negative in commands negative and positive acts in affirmative commands He keeps them not as keeping contradicts all offending for in many things we offend all as St. Iames speaks And therefore can we not fulfil the law because the same Apostle saies 2 ch 10. He that keeps the whole law and offend in one shall be guilty of all And therefore this argument is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for we can say that we may keep the commandements yet not fulfil them according to the power we had in Adam and according to the measure of the obligation which is not adequated to our strength now but to Gods law as an express of his holiness and as commensurable to mans ability in state of Original righteousness Nay it is observable also that the word in St. Iames which is rendered shall offend is as diminutive a word in the kind as I think any other for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest Hindan and the rest of that sort should think that venial sinnes do but cast a little dust upon a Christians life no defilement And therefore to conclude upon the whole matter if the Scripture needs an infallible interpreter to distinguish betwixt counsels and precepts both given in the mood of command this makes no difficulty until counsels find better proof If they will take our counsel let them keep their counsel to themselves This we may say as litle to as he saies in it of new discourse N. 56. He speaks here again of the losse of Divine books This we have spoken to before more then once upon his provocation And this pincheth them for why may not they then faile of some traditions and how then can we depend upon the Church when the Church should have kept them since the Church as the learned of them say is to depend upon them But own thing here he would urge that according to us we must pick out points necessary one out of one Book another out of another Ans Surely this is no strong plea for first ought not the word of God dwel plentifully in us as the Apostle speaks 2. Cannot any own easily discern historical books from doctrinal 3. Can they not take special notice of those heads of doctrine or practice unto which salvation is expressely annexed 4. This argument concludes more heavily against them for depending upon the Church Who can compare all their books from age to age for their doctrin who can compare who hath been most learned and most faithful to derive a successional summe of things to be believed and to be done nay who in the compare of Churches can preferre the best but by the best doctrin and yet according to them we must take the doctrine from the Churches who can measure the vast latitude of the universal Church by those rules of Vincentius is it not easier to receive necessaries from Scripture then to boult them out of so many volumes of ages And how should we be sure of keeping received traditions when some traditions which were received are not yet kept by the Roman Church 5. In Scripture though we pick for necessaries yet we have nothing false but we have false traditions have we not yea this is a false tradition that traditions are equal to Scripture Yea 6. If any books be lost they were lost before Christs time and yet those which remained in St. Pauls time were able to make Timothie wise unto salvation And towards the reading of the Apocryphal books that so we may reade over the whole Canon it is a supposition in stead of proofe The reading of them in the Church doth not inferre their canonicalness of proper name and this is made good to them they know lately by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Cosins in a book on purpose And as for accurate noting all places and conferring with other places What then multa non experimur quia difficilia multa difficilia quia non experimur Is not this possible is not Salvation worth the paines must every one amongst them know the distinct exact sense of all their definitions no they will say but the people should seek the law at the Priests mouths Well then so is it not necessary to Salvation that the people with us should be able exactly to conferre all places and as for those places which contain necessaries there is not such obscurity And yet surely some hardness according to their principles doth belong to faith for how otherwise should it be supernatural and meritorious therefore if their way of beliefe be so easie it doth not beare proportion to the qualities of faith assigned by Mr. Knott And as for Translations to agree with the Originals this we have canvased before And our people can do it as well as theirs better too because they have liberty of translations And to the truth of originals we must come in several causes as Bellarmin before Omne reducitur ad principiun is good here too And then the consectary of these difficulties he would make to be negative to us namely that God did not intend this book to be our only guide And he would perswade us thus Gods wisedome directs him to the best meanes to compass his intention And then he would frame a minor with advantage thus even our ordinary wisedome if we had an
intention to set forth a writing to end all necessary controversies would direct us to set down plainly clearly in one place all those few as you say points necessary to be believed So then this must be a good argument man in such a case in ordinary wisedome would do so therefore God hath done so Surely these Romanists speak from the top of the Capital and will not only teach men but God One found fault blasphemously with Gods creation thinking and saying that he could have made it better So. But the Schoolemen might have told my adversaries that though God could have made several things in their accidentals better yet they could not but say that he could not make them in a better manner Meliori modo So then also if they believe that God did make the Scripture they may believe that he could not make it in a better and more wise manner Let them satisfie then St. Pauls question who hath been his Counceller And then the argument from man to God will binde And yet 2. Turn the tables and this discourse is returned to them if God had intended the Church for our infallible guide he would clearly since his wisdome directs him to the best means for the compassing of his intention have told us so in one place or other as well as man tells us plainly who is our judge in point of law this they should have demonstrated but no more need be said of this since the question is de facto Yet another argument of this kind he hath against us God hath set down the cermeonies in Leviticus fully particularly and clearly points of faith necessary to salvation import incomparably more then points of meer ceremonie If then God had intended a book by which only he was resolved to deliver unto us all points necessary to salvation these points as you say being few he would in some one part of these books have clearly set down those few points a thousand times more importing than points of ceremony Ans Surely he hath better arguments or a bad cause because he in the time of the law appointed a Sanedrin as a standing Assembly to judge all causes and the high priest too in some case therefore he must have appointed such an Assembly now which should consist of many of the laity to judge all causes and the Pope too God is not moved by any thing to act all waies in the same manner Deus vult hoc propter hoc sed non propter hoc vult God orders this to this but by this is not moved But 2. His substratum here is false for he supposeth here that all the ceremonies are set down together in one place otherwise how can he upon compare say much more the summe of points necessary should have been set down in some one part of these books now the cerimonies are not all set downe together and now and then some morality is mingled with them And so also points necessary may be here and there mingled with other points without any disparagement of Gods wisedome 3. If he hath particularly clearly and fully set down points of ceremonie in Scripture then how much more points necessary to salvation a thousand times more importing then points of ceremonie But verum prius for it is theirs then the latter also upon the same account And so they may see how little they get by such arguments And therefore surely Christ is not obliged to his Church for credibility but his Church to his word and spirit Let them think upon that of Christ St. Iohn the 7.17 if any one will do my will he shall know of my doctrin whether it be of God or whether I speak of my selfe And yet another proof you bring in that many hold that the Epistles of St. Iohn were written after the Apocalypse c. And what then Is it therefore true because many hold so I trow not for then rather it should not be so because more hold the contrary but what would he make of it if they had been written after the Apocalypse this Upon this supposition the Epistles of St. Iohn are the last part of the canon now in this last part of the last part of the Canon Saint Iohn saies I have many things to write but I will not with inke and penne write them but I trust we shall see thee shortly and speake face to face Upon this the broken matter of his discourse might for more cleareness be put into this forme many things were written which are not set down in the canon no man can say that those many things were unnecessary Therefore no man can say that many things not unnecessary are not set down in the canon Ans We need not answer it The ground of the major is rotten and is to be made firm if it could by him that is not the order of the books And it is not the order in the Latin therefore this binds them to beleive the contrary And therefore the minor which must suppose that supposition must fall with it And yet also how he minceth it no man can say c. What is this to settle us in infallibility He might also have said better for himself some things not unnecessary might be amongst those which St. Iohn intended to speak to them and this would have served his turne against us But let them speak and prove categorically that the Epistles were written after the Apocalypse and that many things which he would speak unto them were necessary Otherwise no man can say that this argumentation concludes ought And besides the terms unnecessary might have a distinction if it sounds as useful it is not to the point of the question if as much as necessary yet what he should speak to them he should speak by the spirit of God and let them give us such assurance for what they would adde to Scripture then they will say somewhat And yet again they should not surely be necessary because many for surely some things which were necessary were written and yet those things which are certain are few as Tertullian said Certa sunt in paucis Again should those many things have been adverse to what he had written or diverse or the same in substance not adverse they will say because they say their traditions are praeter Evangelium not contra beside the Gospel not contrary if diverse then surely they did not contein things in substance necessary For would Saint Iohn have written several things not necessary and have left to word of mouth things necessary when Ebion and Cerinthus vaunted so much of their Apostolical traditions And if they were the same in substance then what addition Again if they were necessary how can this be reconciled to that of St. Iohn the 20.31 whereupon St. Austin and St. Cyrill and St. Chrysostom it seems do conclude that there was enough written which was sufficient to faith my third answer about this argument that
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
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
determin that grave question without calling a Council Ans first if those termes could not attend an absolute negation of power they are denied For they that were infallible in their doctrine could have severally determined that controversie as we take power absolutely as well as St. Peter confirmed St. Pauls doctrine according to them But he seemes to mean it in a qualified sense after the manner of Aquinas distinction of necessity therefore thus he for this is necessary for the better conviction of heretickes fuller satisfaction of the weaker sort and further comfort of the whole Church This end of calling a Council upon such a necessity I suppose he reflects to the Council of the Apostles as if the sense should be they could not conveniently and upon the supposition of such ends determine that grave question without calling a Council but then we are not under an absolute necessity of a Council And untill this be proved my adversaries have done nothing for a necessity of convenience of a Council will not serve their purpose because we can grant it But 2. we say this example is not for his turn because this Council was called upon a question about things in their nature not necessary but we are upon the debate of the absolute necessity of councils in and for things necessary not things of scandall only and yet again 3. As it is commonly noted they in their Councils cannot conclude their determinations as in that Council of the Apostles it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to uâ— because those Apostles were infallible in their discourse as well a in their conclusions but those who are now members of Councils are confessed by stapleton to be fallible in their discourse and how then shall we be sure that they are infallible in the conclusion unles they can prove that though the discourse be not rationall the conclusion will yet be propheticall And yet 4. The Apostles themselves proceeded to the determination of this question by principles of Scripture therefore Scripture is the highest principle to raise faith even in things of controversie And this concludes against them who make the Church in businesses of faith to be the highest principle And therefore also whatsoever binds the Christian faith hath its obligation by vertue of Scripture So then nothing he saies doth sufficiently render that sense or use he makes of that Text Dic ecclesiae And yet he hath not then found though he does Thrasonically say so a Iudge in matters of faith a living Iudge an infallible Iudge excluding all possibility of errour We can helpe them to finde Judges dicendo pluraliter but such a Judge as he speaks of here he hath no more hope to find then need to seek And yet such a Judge he must have for the justification of Christ's law in the former Text otherwise Christ could not possibly have declared it to be so haynous a crime not to hear the Church being that it might have been no crime at all he obliged all to obey and hear her therefore she cannot lead us into an errour Ans I think we should not have had so many words about such assent if they had not more need thereof then the Text or Christ of their defence they have more necessity of Christs justification then he of theirs His words above have two formes one in an hypotheticall way the other in way of an Enthymem I deny the consequence in both and to them both I suppose one proposition and that is this Christs command to obey doth not inferre impossibility of errour in the Church Simply it is therefore false what he would have to be consequentiall To hear the Church therefore hath two things in it one act which is internall and that is to give assent to what the Church shall order the other an externall act of submission the former may be denied and therefore she may erre the latter may be due and therefore not to be denied And consequently his infallibility of knowledge of this point is not so greaâ— as of those points which are delivered by Scripture namely not understanding it de facto because his knowledge of points delivered by Scripture is de industria small but de posse his knowledge of points of faith delivered by Scripture may be greater then his knowledg of this because it is not delivered by Scripture So that for his Creed I say as the Frenchmen proverbially are wont il ne point damne qui ne le coit he is not damned that doth not believe it there is difference betwixt standing up to what is proposed and standing out against the Church in contempt Absolute belief will then be rational when moral assurance which yet is not alwaies to be had makes Faith And when he hath proved the assumption that the church of Rome is only this Church and by manifest consequence then the Pope shall be no usurper and yet not infallible neither We deny the Postulate with a contradiction because we can deny the Church's definition without a contradiction Then in the seventh and eight numbers he useth plain-evasions In the seventh he tells me that he doth not use that method which I tell him he should have used in some favor to me when I come to use this very method I do foresee that it will so galde you and he saies I would have the burthen shifted off to the other shoulder to avoide present trouble Ans these are his Rhodomontadoes Is not the method a priori more rationall If he can prove the Church infallible and absolute authority to belong to it our obedience must follow but since obedience is ambiguous and distinguishable though obedience in some respect be due yet not on that part which inferres infallibility but on that part which respects authority as we take authority for power 2. There was nothing said by him formerly which I have not fully answered and now the reinforcements but it became him to say so who was more pinched And how will he quits himself in this method we are to see in thâ—â—2 numb And in the eight numb here he tells me the reason why he saies nothing to St. Austins authority produced by me namely lest he should lose his labour but I know a better reason because he will find too much labour to answer it And as quick dispatch the ninth Paragr deserves For he doth not offer any answer to any reason in mine but here snaps in order to a vindication of the Text Matt. 20.7 for his cause He took exceptions at our translation should keep knowledge he renders it shall keep I defended the translation by the possibility of that sense in the Hebrew because it hath no formal subjunctive By the scope of the Text because they are blamed for their default He persists against our translation because all originals he means all copies or indeed all translations he should mean because of what follows speak clearly in the future
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
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
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
buckler it is enough to us that he cannot or does not prove it But then 2. He is wanting in another thing because he doth not produce his reasons against our reasons let them draw the Sword and cut the knots if they cannot unty them Let them bring forth their strong reasons as the Prophet speakes When as then he saies bring against my illimited Text another Text limiting we say that the cause and our office is upon the negative until he brings another Text for his sense or gives reason for it or gives us the consent of all ages of the Church we have nothing more to thinke besides what hath been said then that he had reason to say more then what follows the necessity of the people which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infalliblity was greater in ages remoter from Christ But this was answered to by retortion that then Traditions it seemes now are not to be accounted equally certain And he answers now that which he had better have kept in He saies now it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles was crucified did rise again then it was presently after these thinges happened yet all these things be as infallibly true now as they were then and as infallible so I say of traditions which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty Ans Traditions then were but equall to Scripture Traditions now are not equall to Traditions then Therefore they are not now equall to Scripture And this spoyles their Traditions and contradicts the Trent Council which determins that they are to be received Pari pietatis affectu And so hath he lost his hold of Traditions by his own words Neither will it save him to say that they are now as infallible as then in themselves but not to us for so is the Scripture infallible in it self without the Church as they confess but it doth not so appear to us they say 2. They are to make good if they can degrees of infallible assistance by the least degree of infallibility But to goe on what if there be no such necessity c. Ans He seemes to be towards a punctum reflexionis here well if there be no such necessity of equall assistance then my answer to such Texts is the better And then let them take the rule which their own do use Deus non deficit in necessaris nec abundat in superfluis God doth not abound in things superfluous nor is wanting in things necessary But then also if it be not necessary why have my adversaries so much pleaded the necessity of an infallible judge Indeed it might be if God had pleased and yet not necessary by necessity of consequent but they are wont to prove it to be because it is necessary He goes on Did not the Church alone serve to decide all controversies before the Scripture was written c. We answer as often before The Church is not thence concluded infallible put it into forme that which decides all controversies is infallible the Church before Scripture was written did decide all controversies Therefore it is infallible No. We first deny the proposition That which decides all controversies decides them infallibly does not follow This cannot be proved less will not serve them Then 2. To the assumption we can deny it it did not decide all controversies put case it did decide all necessary controversies yet not all controversies And we must have a judge they say to decide all controversies whatsoever And 3. If the Church then before Scripture was written did decide all controversies whatsoever then surely there is not that assistance infallible now given to the Roman Church because notwithstanding they have the Scripture and Traditions yet they cannot decide all controversies If they can they are not faithfull and then that of St. Cyprian is not due to them now that perfidia non potest habere accessum If they cannot where is the equall assistance and then also what was decided by the Church was decided by the Scripture in the substance of it though not then written so that he had no cause to contradistinguish this decision of the controversies to the use of Scripture Again he saies did not the old Scripture testifie as much as was necessary that Iesus Christ was the true Messias Yes to what end then was Iohn Baptist sent to testifie this Ans First if the old Scripture did sufficiently testifie of the Messias then that which I have said concerning the sufficiency of the whole Canon is surely sufficient if it did not sufficiently testifie then his argument is none 2. There is not par ratio for the adding infallibility to the Church after the Canon is consigned as for St. Iohns testimony notwithstanding the old Scripture More might be requisit for the settling of the Primitive Church then after because the Church after was to be grounded in the Primitive But he saies there is as good reason In ages after the first when the Church should grow from a grain of mustard seed c. This proves nothing unless there might arise such a controversie which could not upon Salvation be decided without an infallible Judge Let them prove this and they will say somthing If not this will not be to the purpose that several controversies in such a space might arise And would not the same number of necessary points material and formal serve as many more thousands of Christians And those controversies which he names we have spoken to nay when they have as they suppose an infallible Judge are all controversies ended Let them bethink themselves what differences amongst them are yet dependent as before We waite therefore for the proof of such a promise of assistance extended to infallibility for other ages of the Church It is not enough for him to say why might not Christ for any thing you know thinke this a sufficient reason A posse in the premises will not make an actuality in the conclusion 2. there is a difference betwixt a reason after the thing is apparent and a reason to prove the thing to be if they can soundly prove to us that there is such an assistance given in promise to the Church in all ages then we should sooner be induced to the acknowledgment of his reason But there is nothing in the reason till the reason prove the thing 3. If words in Scripture were to be taken allwaies simply according to the termes what need would there then be of an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture Therefore let them chuse which they will do whether they will allwaies have Scripture meant according to the uppermost import of the letter if so then the sense of Scripture is plain which they have denied if not then may they admit a limitation of that assistance spoken of Matthew 28.3 This forme of modality why might not should not one would think become the high mode of infallible assistance
Apostasie or Heresie or nothing it cannot fall but into errour it may fall To be sure this is the surest way unles they had beter arguments against every errour whatsoever or better answers for the arguments against them Nevertheless we must attend his Syllogism all this time all the visible guides or Praelats of the Church were lead and did leade into opinions contrary to the texts of your Church but all this time the spirit of truth did abide with them guiding them into all truth therefore the opinions contrary to your Church were true and not errours Well not to trouble them as to strictnes of forme To the proposition we can say that if they intend it of all the times from the Apostles we utterly deny it if they mean it of the times after the first six hundred yeares of the Church then we grant the proposition but utterly deny the assumption they were not guided by the spirit into such a Latin Edition into halfe communion And this denies his proof that those opinions were true because they were led into them by the Holy Spirit This is denied and is the question And it is more easily said that the Holy Spirit was with us by common assistance unto our opinions then with them by infallible assistance unto their opinions If we are to Judge of their assistance by the effects we had need of infallible assistance if it were convenient for the discourse to conclude for them but I am sure we have no need of infallible assistance to conclude against them Neither is it any boot to them that the Spirit leads all into truth for this may be limited to saving truth And this is not sufficient for them who must have absolute infallibility or none And then all may be limited as that proposition God will have all men to be saved is limited by Aquinas out of St. Austin by the like such a School-Master teacheth all in the Town whereof the sense is this not that he teacheth every own simply but all that are taught are taught by him So the Spirit all leads that are led but all simply are not led The limitation then in regard of the object of the Person or in regard of the object of the thing cuts off all their provision from hence And when we have sufficiently refuted their points of difference we have no need to say any thing that the Holy Spirit should teach contradictions if he were with them and us too for first infallible assistance is asserted to neither but denied and common assistance doth not exclude all errour and then 2. The Holy Spirit was not with them infallibly by the effect for since the same Spirit doth not teach contradictions he did not infallibly teach them that which is oposite to Scripture which he did teach That which followes in compare of the visibility of their Teachers with ours or any other Churches is but a meer flourish Shew me a succession in all ages of the Guides and lawfull Pastours of any Church holding your Tenets in points differing from ours Ans Succession de se is like number of no value Therefore they must prove their doctrine to be right otherwise it will be a succession of errour for as he said Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris 2. It is accidentall to a true particular Church to have succession and the Church at first was true antecedently to the succession and so the former times must never have been certain of their being right because a Persecution might afterwards have interrupted their succession 3. The Heretickes bragged of their sucession too therefore this is no proper special distinctive argument 4. Where is their succession of universal Bishops for the first six hundred yeares Then where is their Church Then either let them not give or take that argument 5. Our opinions to them are negative then they are to shew a positive succession in the doctrin of those points which they can never do unless by their infallibility post-nate antiquity should be as good as Primitive For as for the Fathers of the purest times tam sunt omnes nostri quam D. Augustinus I am sure we may better say so then Campian 6. We can shew our doctrine by Scripture let them shew theirs without it And whatsoever is according to Scripture is true this they deny not our doctrine is yet made good to be according to Scripture therefore the Charter of our points we have the Records of in Scripture and this way is good enough for us which is a posteriori And yet also we can tell them that if it had not been for their cruelty and domination we might better have returned them that which St. Austin said to the Donatists vos tam pauci tam novi tam turbulenti And God hath left us in all ages of greeks and others who have given us occasion to say we hold nothing in the points of difference but was held before Therefore this argument doth not succeed so that they must still labour to find a reason why our doctrine should not be as good as theirs N. 31. The sense of this Section we have had before And it falls into such a Syllogism whatsoever was Gods end in giving of Pastours is allwaies compassed That the Church should be without errour and should not be as Chidren wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine was Gods end Ephes 4.12 Ans Whatsoever was Gods end is allwaies compassed so farr as it was his end where the effect depends not also upon morall causes take it so and we grant the major and deny the minor it was not Gods end that the Church should be without all errour whatsoever and the effect doth depend upon moral causes which may hinder the success The end of the Sacraments in the time of the Gospel they will say was to conferr grace ex opere operato yet they say they have not that effect Ponentibus obicem Or thus whatsoever is Gods end in his will of purpose that shall surely be compassed but what is his end in the will of sign is not allwaies compassed take it then in the latter sense so I deny the major take it in the former sense so I deny his minor For this would be more unreasonable by their doctrine for if God should work omnipotently to secure men from errour by meanes how should the obedience of faith be brought under freedome of will 2. This respects also particular Churches and therefore will not serve their turne who though they make but a particular Church yet are wont to challenge the privileges of the universal 3. This Text speakes nothing of the power of Iurisdiction but of the power of order now the duty of our obedience beats respect formally to Authority and Iurisdiction or do they like some of Geneva divide Pastours and Teachers And then do they think that the ordinary Pastour is here principally aimed at in their extraordinary
the immediate assistance of the holy Ghost which they had undoubtedly And here as if you had proved some thing you have a fling at the Council of Trent for sitting so long a thing as little derogatory to that Councils infallibility as that much disputing and making several speeches was derogatory to the infallibility of the council of the Apostles in which onely one short Decree was made Look on the many Canons and Decrees for Reformation in matters subject to great Disputes Oppositions of secular power which crossed not the Apostles first Council Look on the multitude of Heresies condemned after a full hearing of all that could be said by all parties and it must needs be rather a point of satisfaction to all then a scandal unto any to see so mature consideration used But both a slow and a hastie and a mean delivery of any ones condemnation will be distasteful to the condemned person 27. As for the Authoritie of St. Athanasius calling the definition of the council of Nice by which the Consubstantiality of God the Son with his Father The Word of God it sheweth clearly that this prime Doctor held that God delivered his Word unto us by the council Your Answer is that the councils Definition did not bind with Relation to the Authority of the Council but by the authothority of Scripture Ministerially proposed by the council Sir I have already shewed Chap. 2. Numb 4. that the clearest Text which the council had to cite even that text I and my Father are one can be so expounded by an Arrian that it doth no more then probably declare the consubstaÌ„tiality But as you say here If the text be but probable we caÌ„not froÌ„ thence urge this probable sense of it as an object of faith But S. Athanasius urgeth CoÌ„substantialitie after the Nicene council as Gods VVord and an Object of Faith which he cannot doe with a Relation to a Text onely probable in Scripture Therefore he doth it with Relation to the infallibility of the councils Authority which council if it had onely Authority to propose like a Minister such and such Texts as may be severally taken and consequently mistaken by an Interpreter who is onely fallible could not be said in its Interpretations to propose the undoubted Word of God And though Saint Athanasius held that as truth before the council in order to himself who was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the ancient Doctrine of the Church yet in order to those who were not before the council convinced by that Verily he could nor boldly denounce this as an infallible meaning of Gods Word obliging all O! This Declaration of Gods Word by the council he boldly said The Word of God by the Council of Nice remained for ever After this you come in again with the council of Ariminum contending that council as well to be believed for it self as the council of Nice And you think if more exceptions could have been made against the authority of the council of Ariminum Saint Austin against his Arrian adversary might easily have Prevailed by insisting onely upon the authority of the council of Nice which he waveth and goeth to arguments out of Scripture Sir A man of reading cannot but know that the council of Ariminum is never by the Fathers no nor by your Church of England numbred among the first foure councils which foure by addition of this council had it been a lawful council should have been made Five And you might as well think that I might prevail against you by only citing the council of Trent which I never cited yet but stood wholly on other arguments For I know as we in vain dispute with Heathens out of Scripture or out of Saint Matthewes Gospel against Manichâ—ans or out of the Machabees against you so Saint Aâ—stâ—â— in vain had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it as you do at that of Trent He being well furnished with other arguments out of Scriptures admitted by him intended by them onely at that time to overthrow him and not to meddle with a long contention fit to fill a book alone about the validity of the council of Nice and invalidity of that of Ariminum as we two for the like reason doe not stand onely contesting about the authority of the council of Trent I am now for a long time to contest with you about the Scripture onely as Saint Aâ—stin did with him 28. But before I enter further upon this contestation about this controversie of the Infallibility of the Church I must put you in mind of your own doctrines which teacheth that all necessary controversies are clearly decided according to the truth by plain Scripture This controversie then being one of the most necessary must clearly according to your doctrine be decided for you against me by plain Scripture If then I can but shew that it is not thus clearly decided against me I clearly shew that I hold no errour in this point For all errour in such a necessary point as this is can be demonstrated to be against plain Scripture What I hold to wiâ—t that the Church is Infallible cannot be demonstrated by plain Scripture to be so Therefore what I hold is no error Now I must prove that what I hold of the infallibility of the Church cannot by clear Scripture be demonstrated to be an error This I prove thus The Scripture is not so clear against this as it is for this Therefore this cannot by clear Scripture be demonstrated to be an error My first proposition must be shewed by citing as clear texts for what I hold of this point as you can bring against it Well then for this point I have alledged in the beginning of this chapter the text promising That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against this Church and that text which tels us we must hear the Church under pain of being by Gods judgement accounted as Publicans and Heathens and that the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth 29. In my 23. Numb of my former Treatise I adde a fourth Text Behold I am with you all daiâ—s Of my 23th Number even to the consummation of the world Out of this such like promises made to the Apostles we prove their infallibility in teaching in writing c. But these words are to be verified unto the consummation of the world therefore they must not only contain a promise made of being with the Apostles who died a thousand and 6 hundred yeares ago but of being with the Prelats of the Church their successors who shall be to the consummation of the world Your answer to this Text shall be rendred in your own words that you may not complain of foul play Your words were Although the promise be extendible to the end of the world yet it is not necessary to understand it so as that there shall alwayes be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles