Infallible Churches Authority to be the ground of Faith I proved the Authority of the Roman Church to be so See this fully answered Numb 27.28 Secondly You say you might still have left me to answer your first Paper with the second Paper I reply that this is onely to stand to what you have said as I also do Let the Reader judge with indifferency Thirdly You say I conclude not contradictorily I reply that I alwayes conclude the Churches Authority to be a sufficient ground of Faith you say it is an insufficient ground Reader judge whether these two be not Contradictions sufficient and insufficient Now to your Eight Answers in Order In your first Answer you spent seven pages to prove the Scripture to be a sufficient ground of Faith This This it is not to conclude contradictorily You should conclude that the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of Faith which still may be and is true though it also be most true that the Scripture is a most sufficient ground of Faith when it is once known by an infallible Authority to be Gods Word and also when we evidently know that such and such is the undoubted sense of the Scripture But I have proved at large that we cannot know upon infallible Authority which books be or be not Gods Word but by the Authority of an infallible Church See Numb 11 12. And consequently if the Churches Authority be not a sufficient ground for Faith then we can have no Faith to believe which books be Gods Word which not See Numb 26. The Churches authority is hence proved to be a sufficient ground for Faith and to be our first ground for we must first upon the authority of the Church believe such and such Books to be Gods Word and then assured by this our belief that they be Gods Word we may ground our Faith upon the authority of that Word of God which in this sense I hold to be a most sufficient ground for all Faith extended to all points clearly contained in Scripture This and onely this all your Authorities prove Take for an Example your first Authority of St. Irenaeus out of which you neither do nor can infer any more then that the Scripture once believed to be Gods Word is to us a sufficient ground of Faith because in it self it is The Pillar and Foundation of Truth but by the Authority of Saint Paul which is a stronger Authority then that of Saint Irenaeus The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth Therefore her Authority is a sufficient ground of Faith even according to this your strong Argument This I shewed Numb 22. Yea Saint Irenaeus expresly teacheth that though there were no Scripture at all yet we should all be bound to believe what we now believe as I have shewed Numb the. 19. And yet then we should have no other Authority then that of the Church Again the Scriptures can then onely ground Faith when they contain the Matter about which we are bound to have Faith but very often they do not contain this Matter as I have shewed Numb 9.10.11 12. and chiefly Numb 15. and 16. These points not being contained in Scripture how can I believe them for the Scripture Lastly the Authority of Scripture onely can ground Faith in those points which are known undoubtedly to be delivered in such clear Texts as a man cannot prudently doubt of the sence but a number of things are to be believed which be not thus set down in Scripture as hath been shewed in the places cited See also Numb 14. In other Cases I never deny the Scripture to be the ground of Faith but I say that as God spoke by the pens of those who writt Scripture so he speaketh by the Tongue of his Church in a General Council and therefore these his words are also to be believed as I fully shewed Numb 21.22 23 24 25 26. The Scripture in the Cases I here specified is a sufficient ground of Faith as your authorities well prove and so is the authority of the Church as I have fully proved in the places cited In your second Answer all you say is that the Church cannot ground our Faith but I have fully shewed the contrary in the places cited In your third Answer you come to answer the Testimonies I brought out of Holy Fathers and Scriptures and this taketh you up unto your 27. Page My Reply is that in this Paper I have made good Authorities and Testimonies sufficiently abundant to convince what I undertook and I have fully refuted the chief things you said against the chief places as may appear fully out of the Numb 17 19 22 23 24 25 26. where at large I have shewed your lesse sincere proceeding about the prime authority of S. Austin whose authority in the precedent Number I shewed not to be single In the fourth Answer you say you take not Canonical Books to be Canonical for the authority of the Church I Reply that if you do not take them to be so on this authority yet the holy Fathers did as I have shewed Numb 12.25 26. And if you believe them to be Canonical onely upon the Light given in them to you to see this verity your ground is far more fallible then the authority of a General Council as I have demonstrated Numb 13. In the fifth Answer you endevour to shew that you ground not your Faith on your own private judgement of discretion but I have shewed fully the contrary Nu. 3 4 7. In the sixt Answer you rejoyce to see me confesse the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and Manners as if I had at any time denyed this Neither doth this Confession destroy my Position that the Church is the Ground of our Belief Can I not ground my Faith upon what St. Peter saith because I can ground it upon that which Saint Paul saith Why is the Scripture the Rule of Faith Because it delivereth to me Gods Written Word But the Church delivereth to me Gods Word written and unwritten I may therefore also rule my self by that The most right Rule of Scripture is often so crookedly applyed that he is blind who seeth not that we need to have better security of Interpretation then our own private discretion of Judgement can afford as I have fully proved Num. 4.14 Of the Infallibility of the Church in Interpreting I have fully proved our Doctrine Numb 21 22 23 24 25 26. In the seventh Answer you taxe me with being loath to own the Roman Church Why I did not speak of the Roman Church I told you here in the beginning it was because you would conclude as there you do The Catholique Church is not the Ground of Faith therefore the Roman is not I have fully shewed the contrary and proved the Catholique Church to be the ground of our Faith and out of superabundance I have shewed this Church to be the Roman Church See Numb 27 28. In the eighth Answer
you charge me in differing from my selfe because before I taught the ground of Believing to be the Authority of the Church and now I say it is the Authority of God Revealing My Reply is exceeding easie The Ground of our Faith is God Revealing and God Revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first Belief when he tells us by his Church such and such Books are Infallibly his Word God Revealing is alwaies the formal object of Faith but sometimes God Revealeth his minde by Scriptures and sometimes by the Church as he did for two Thousand yeares and more before the Scriptures were written The Prophets before they did write did say This saith the Lord to wit this he said by their Mouths So say I This and this saith our Lord by the Mouth of his Church as I have shewed Numb 22. Saint Athanasius to speak and I have shewed Numb 28. The General Councel of Chalcedon to have said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Pope of Rome And thus Gods Revelation cometh to us by the Church She and onely She teacheth us these and these Scriptures to be Gods Word We must first believe her before we can come to have Infallible Ground to believe Scriptures as I have fully shewed After we have believed Scripture we cannot by Scripture onely know the undoubted sense of many necessary places in Scripture as hath been shewed Again all things necessary to be believed be not set down in Scripture as hath also been shewed fully The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her Authority to be our ordinary cause of Faith At the end of these your Answers you would fain seem to have spoken properly in accusing us of Excesse of Faith But your distinction doth no way salve the Impropriety of the Speech for there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects but granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that Sense it is not truly said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing what God saith for believing upon an Infallible Authority all that we believe we cannot believe more then we should if we believe no more things then be grounded upon that Infallible Authority as we do not And consequently we do no more then believe such things as have for their Warrant This faith the Lord. Having now answered your Paper from the beginning to the end I am most willing to take your own close out of Saint Austin Against Reason no sober Man will go against Scriptures no Christian against the Church no Peace-maker adding his other words Tr. 32. in Joan. Let us believe my Brethren so much as a Man loveth the Church just so much he hath of the Holy Ghost SIR I Cannot answer it to God nor to his Church with us if I let you seem to your self or to others of your perswasion that you have the Victory untill you have overcome your Error therefore you will excuse me if I still follow you To your Preface then If the Roman Catholiques have often foretold that by permitting freely to all sorts of people the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother-tongue multitudes of new Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberlesse number and as for the peoples Manners they would grow worse and worse as you say in the beginning then are your Roman Catholiques in this false Prophets because they seem by you to make that the cause of Heresies and bad Manners This is plainly fallacia non causa or the fallacy of accident And secondly it is contrary to that of our Saviour Christ Saint Mark the 12.24 Do you not therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God By our Saviour the knowledge of the Scriptures is not the cause of erring but the not knowing of the Scriptures is the cause of erring You do therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto Salvation as Saint Paul to Timothy 2 Tim. 3.15 And thirdly You confesse in this Paper that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may Ground our Faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered And fourthly How cometh it to passe then that some of those in whom Infallibility as you think is vested have been Hereticks and lewd the former of which indeed you do much deny but is exemplified in Liberius's subscribing against Athanasius as you may see fully proved by our Reinolds against your Hart. And surely was that also an action of bad Manners Therefore if your Church were the true Church yet doth it not you see teach the way of Salvation infallibly and therefore can we not by it infallibly discerne the true Religion from the false Indeed the Catholick Church hath taught the infallible way of Salvation but that was the Scripture as I proved by many Testimonies and this was a teaching the infallible way by consequence because it did teach the Scripture which is the infallible way yet hath it not in particular points taught the infallible way infallibly Neither are we by the Church infallibly resolved that the Scripture is the Word of God although the authority of the true Church be a motive herein yet is it not that wherein ultimately we ground our Faith of the Scriptures as I have shewed Whereas then you say that we cannot have as things stand any other assurance to ground our Faith upon securely namely then the Church you do still but fortiter supponere for we cannot ground our assurance securely upon the Church And secondly Whereas you say that as things stand we have no other assurance c. you do not well consider what you say or I do not understand what you mean for hereby you do intimate that the Church is not the ground of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that which is indeed the ground of our Faith must be so absolutely and universally as farre as is necessary the Church security is but the best of the kinde amongst those which are humane but we must have a Divine indefectible ground for our Divine Faith in which there cannot be falsity Neither thirdly Is the Church the first ground because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God because if we did by it believe the Scripture then we are not first to believe it by the Scripture And if whatsoever credence we do give to it we do give by authority of the Scripture then are we first to believe the Scripture and then that is the first ground Fourthly In that you say you did never deny that when we are by the Infallible authority of the Church assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture c. you say that which concludes against the practice of
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
that it is not argumentative to others And therefore as to the question about the sufficiency of Scripture Mr. Hooker says that this is to be supposed that the Scriptures are the word of God And notwithstanding he thinks this is not to be proved by it self yet in his first book 34. p. he speaks enough in that he says the Scriptures do sufficiently direct us to salvation And he quotes for it Sotus in the margent And if it sufficiently directs us to salvation then must it be sufficiently clear of it self that it is the word of God for otherwise the principal point unto salvation must be known otherwise And if they think to argue well that we must have all faith from the authority of the Church because we have the faith of the Scriptures from the Authority of the Church we may as well conclude that since we have sufficient direction to salvation from the Scripture we are also sufficiently directed to this main point of faith from the Scripture that the Scripture is the word of God Yea more the Scripture doth give better evidence of it self to be the word of God than the Church can give testimony of it self to be infallible because the Church as such in religion is a non ens without Scripture in the substance of it But to make an end of this exception against me in varying from others this is the common Protestant principle or else Stapleton was decieved who makes account that every one of us ad unum do hold the Scripture to be known per se et sua quadam luce propria In Analsiy principionem Therefore if the question be how we are privately assured ultimately that the Scripture is the word of God we say with Stapleton that we are assured hereof by the testimony of the Spirit if the question be how we prove it to others to be the word of God we can for extrinsecall proof make use with Mr. Chillingworth of universal tradition His exception then against our private assurance of the Scripture to be the word of God in his following words comes to nothing for we need not from what we have said say that the assent of faith is evident as to an object of sense but yet the assent may be more firm and certain The formall object of faith is inevident yet may we more fastly hold to what we believe than to what we see because what we see depends upon our fallible sense but what we believe hath an infallible ground namely the word of God that this is his word For this ultimately must settle our personall faith or else we have no faith of proper name which is infallibly grounded All believe that what God says is true but if to the question whether God says this God cannot bring his own testimony there can be no authentick ground of Religion in subjecto And those therefore who would not have died to bear witness to a thing of sense have died to bear testimony to the Christian Religion and also have died for it assuredly ex vi habitus by the power of the habit of faith not ex vi traditionis by the credibility of the Church And as to that which he takes â—â—â—tice of that I acknowledge a greater necessity of such a Church to declare by infallible authority which books be the true word of God which not than to declare any other point I answer that it is not very ingenuously taken here by him what I said for I spake by way of supposition that it would not follow if the Church were infallible as to propose or tax and consign Canonical books as Stapleton speaks yet that we had need of the Church infallibly to propose every other point of faith He it seems took positively what was spoken upon supposition Every thing which is given in discourse is not granted to him but this he refers to num 43. For the ending then of this Paragraph and sufficiently for the Controversie upon the whole matter it remains that the Scripture must be credible for it self or else the Church Not the Church that must be known by the Scriptures as before therefore those texts by which the Church is proved in the truth and infallibility must be worthy to be believed for themselves or not if so then why not other parts of Scripture and so we have our purpose if not then are we in a circle and must beg the question and never be satisfied Num. 22. Here another argument is drawn against me from the effect negatively which in the kind of it doth not conclude A non esse ad non posse non valet And we may as well argue that some have this way attained faith therefore this is the way however the possibility proceeds from the effect to 〈◊〉 but it doth not proceed against a possibility from the deniall of it to some Because Pighius and Hermannus have not found assurance this way therefore this is not the way for finall assurance is inconsequent Secondly the cause of non-assurance thus doth not arise from the defect in Scripture which Stapleton says and some others is true and holy and authentick but God doth not give by his Spirit faith to all All men have not faith as the Apostle as commonly we expound it and though they are said to believe in the sense of the Church because they professe the Christian Religion yet by an internall act of faith many not Thirdly neither are we bound to maintain this proposition of theirs Facienti quod in se est datur gratia ex congruo and therefore if upon the use of means they have not this Divine faith infused it is no prejudice to our cause for not onely gifts are gratiae gratis datae but also the gratiae gratum facientes are also freely given and therefore is their distinction by the way faultie And therefore if there be many millions which is yet more than he could know who can truly and sincerely protest before God and take it upon their salvation that they are wholly unable by the reading these books to come to an infallible assurance that this is Gods word This inferrs nothing of moment against us because although we have not ordinarily the effect without the means yet because we use the meanes therefore necessarily we shall have the effect doth not follow if the graces of God be free Yea fourthly those millions he means are of their Church we may suppose and they we may think are instructed to find no resolution but in their own way by the proposall of the Church So that as St. Paul says Rom. 10.3 of the Jews that they going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God so also may we say of these that they going about to establish the authority of the Church in this point have not submitted themselves to the authority of God Yea fifthly and lastly to be even
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
faith but only Opinion or humane belief ANSVVER THe Paper may be resolved into a Supposition and a Reason and a Conclusion To these in order First The Supposition It is not sufficient to make one a Catholick that he believe the same things that a Catholick doth believe unless the Catholick Church be the Ground also of his belief c. as in the Amplification of it This Supposition is indeed the main Position of the Pontificians and that which is formally Constitutive of them in that Denomination so that the Answer to it is not made as to a private Opinion or the Opinion of a private Man but as to the General Tenet of their Church in the matter of it In the Terms the word Catholick is to be distinguished for if they mean thereby such an one as they account a Catholick viz. one subject to the Church of Rome upon its own Authority It is very true that None is such a Catholick but he that shall render his belief to them in all things upon this their Proposal and so whatsoever is the Material Object of their faith yet the Formal Object is the Definition of the Church of Rome But if there be a true Sense upon ancient Account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church then there may be in a true sense a Catholick now who doth not make the Church the last Resolutive of faith For where the Scripture was acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners also there the Authority of the Church was not the Determinative thereof And that it was will be made good if it be desired by several Testimonies But secondly give it suppose it that None is a Catholick in a right sense but he that believeth what the Church believeth because the Church believeth it yet the Romane will not gain his purpose thereby unless we would grant this Supposition also That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church which indeed is meant in the Paper though wisely not expressed But this supposition that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church is not to be yielded neither in regard of Comprehension for that makes a contradiction nor in regard of Dominion neither for other Churches have not submitted themselves to their Authority this needs no disproof from us till it hath a proof from them And thirdly If we should stand up to all that their Church in particular doth propose and if we should assent to it upon their Account we might be damned not for our want of faith but for Excess of faith in the Object Material and for the Error of faith in the Formal Object For we should believe more then is true if we should believe whatsoever they believe and somewhat also destructive of Articles in the Apostles Creed And we should also believe upon the wrong Inductive which is not the Authority of their Church as we may see now in the Answer to the Reason The Reason hath in it somewhat true somewhat false True that faith is to believe a thing because God revealeth it False that there is no Infallible way without a Miracle of his Revelation coming to us but by their Church which they suppose to be the Church its Proposition For if the question be This how shall we come to know whether the Church of Rome be the right Church upon the Authority whereof we must ground our faith Wherein shall we terminate our belief hereof In the Authority of the Church of Rome or not We are to believe that they say which God hath revealed but the Cause of our belief must be because the Church proposeth it So then we must believe the Church of Rome upon her own testimony and we must resolve all into this that the Church of Rome is the right Church although it be neither a Revelation nor a natural Principle such as this that The Whole is greater then the Part which indeed gave the Occasion of that Check which was given to Rome Greater is the Authority of the world then of a City Orbis quam Urbis S. Jerom. in Ep. ad Evagrium Wherefore if the faith of a Catholick must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it as is said in the Conclusion yet it is not necessary that this Church should be the Church of Rome For this in proportion would be to resolve our Perswasions into the Judgment of particular Men because a Particular Church which according to the Paper makes no Catholick faith but an Opinion or humane belief REPLY IN the Paper received the Position which I gave It is not sufficient c. is disliked because it makes the Catholick Church the Ground of our belief but in truth I find no reason given for such dislike or any thing said against it but what to me seems very strange and is this If there be a true sense upon ancient account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church c. To which I answer that I would fain know what Catholick upon ancient Account did not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable Contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Church S. Iren. l. 3. c. 4. saith We ought not to seek among others the truth which we may easily take and receive from the Church seeing that the Apostles have most fully laid up in her as into a rich Treasure-house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept all things which are of truth that every man that will may take out of her the drink of life For this is the Entrance of life but all the rest are Thieves and Robbers for which cause they are verily to be avoyded But those things which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loved and the tradition of truth is to be received And the said Iren. l. 1. c. 3. telleth us that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence the Apostles faith and that which they preached S. Cypr. Ep. ad Cornel. avoucheth that the Church alwayes holdeth that which she first knew See also his Ep. 69. ad Florentium And S. Aug. had so great an Estimation of the Church that he sticked not to say cont Ep. Manich. quam vocant Fundamentum c. 5. I would not believe the Gospel except the Authority of the Church did move me thereunto Moreover disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptism of Hereticks l. 1. cont Cresc he useth this discourse Although of this that the baptisme of Hereticks is true baptism there be no certain Example brought forth out of the Canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keep the truth of the said Scriptures when as we do that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the Authority of the Scriptures themselves doth commend That
the Church not to permit the use of Scripture unto the People and also you do abate of the Universal Proposition in the first Paper that Divine Faith in all things is caused by the proposal of the Church and therefore if you would hold you to this the Controversie would be lessened betwixt us for dato non concesso that we are bound to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God by the authority of the Church yet when we do thus believe it then the immediate ground of our Faith in those things clearly set down is the written Word of God and not the authority of the Church So then your first Number is indeed in no Number for you cannot mean thus that we cannot believe any thing proposed plainly in Scripture unlesse we believe the authority of the Church in that particular And therefore when you have proved the authority of the Church to be that which causeth and determineth our Faith of Scripture to be the Word of God you will say lesse then formerly and untill you do prove it you say nothing As touching the expressions you make in the second Number of him who answered the Papers give him leave if not to be the adversary herein yet to differ from you and to think himself to be one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England Neither did you intend by courteous and respective words to draw him to your opinion Soft words alone will not do it but soft words with hard arguments may do more When we see a clear demonstration of truth it is no courtesie to yeild assent for the Understanding cannot refuse Truth when it doth shew it selfe But whether the Reply as you speak be as clear a demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter let me have the liberty and the civility if in these businesses it hath any place not to determine Only it is very hard to say who doth optimum quod sic as they speak the best of the kinde Yet also wise men may think that if there can be nothing more expected towards ths defence of your first position the cause is wanting to it And certainly such a wise man and ingenuous as you be will not content himselfe with any ascertainment but that which is absolute and uncapable of Error Therefore not to deceive you by your own commendations put it to issue bring it to the test try the debate betwixt us by this rule of Wisdome and Conscience also Tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum It is certain that the Scripture is Infallible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is Infallible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the Rule and Ground and Cause of Faith As for the good designe you mention here and in your Title to guide Souls redeemed by Christ to the happy Eternity I congratulate to you that desire but I am sorry that such a zeal is better then the way you lead them in Assuredly those Souls redeemed by the Blood of Christ may and shall come to happinesse without any Infallible Judge of Controversies on Earth For first those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture matters of question we are in no such danger by the ignorance of reserving a purpose not to contradict what we shall be convinced in on either part Secondly We may be directed in these points by Judges though not Infallible as unto the quiet of the Church Thirdly Untill your Infallible Judge appears to be truly such it is the best way not to be bound intuitively to his dictates for then we might be in possibility of being bound to believe an errour which is repugnant to the understanding Ex natura rei So that until you make good the Title of an infallible Judge whom as you say we are obliged under pain of damnation not to disbelieve I shall hold up my hand onely in admiration of your confidence And whilest you do demonstrate this that we are bound under pain of damnation not to disbelieve this Judge of yours You say you do demonstrate your former Position that the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church is the ground of our Faith So you yes because you say that the Catholique Church is the infallible Judge To this thus Is it the infallible Judge whereunto we are bound to submit our understandings in all things or not if in all things then we cannot believe what the Scripture saith in plain points without the proposal of the Church which now seems contrary to your mind if not in all things but onely whether the Scripture be the Word of God or in cases of Controversie then do you now go lesse then in your former paper against the nature of implicite Faith Secondly that the authority of the Church is not it upon which we resolvedly rest our Faith of the Scripture or the determination of Controversies we shall see when you come to it Thirdly what do you mean by the Church do you understand it formally of the people or representatively in an Assembly of the Pastors if you mean it of the people also how is infallibility vested in them Are we bound to stand to their judgement and they are to be in obedience to their Pastors Well then it must be understood of their Pastors What of all or most or one If of all when did they all Vote if of most when did most Vote If of one ordinary Pastor with or in a General Council then remember whensoever in your sense you name a Church it be so taken of the Pope and his Council General which yet you will not evince to be infallible by their authority If they were infallible they must be infallible by the Word of God as to us and then that again is the first ground of Faith and also secondly you will find that many priviledges which you have spoken of as to the Church do not belong to the Church Representative strictly but to all the people of the Church as invisible which as such comes not into this Controversie If then you come again in any discourse keep you within and to the bounds of the question and speak of the authority of the Church in the same sense as to be the ground of Faith Divine in all points or in the same particulars For if you proceed from the Churches being the ground of faith as towards the Scripture to be the Word of God To conclude that therefore it is the ground of faith indefinitely or universally you commit the fallacy à dicto secundum quid as also if you proceed from its being the ground of Faith in points of Controversie to the being the ground of Faith in all things the discourse hath the same fault And yet you say that in your progresse you leave nothing of concernment in my reply unanswered and also that you conclude contradictorily to me Sir Let me here
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
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
is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You go on in your Paraphrastical discourse But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel and so this answer cannot serve me notwithstanding I must tell you that I am such an one that I would not believe the Gospel without the authority of the Catholick Church did move me So you Out of which words of your own you may learn how to understand the sense and tense of the Father in the place But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel then he had believed the Gospel before and was not to believe it now and therefore his words must be referred in the African idiotism unto the time more then imperfect otherwise what he had believed he was to believe now which cannot stand with your Infallibility And yet you say afterwards mark if his ground be not so as I told you because saith he I have believed the Gospel it self upon the preaching of the Catholiques therefore if his Adversary should say do not believe the Catholicks he doth not go consequently to force him by the Gospel to any Faith to Manichaeus And hereupon you break out in these words Can he more clearly ground upon the Infallible Authority of their Teaching then upon this to believe the Gospel it self Answ Again these words do not include a Divine Faith of the Infallibility of the Church which you must have or else your cause is starved Because those words I would not believe the Gospel unlesse the authority of the Catholick Church did move me which must be the principal ground do not include his Faith of the Infallibility of the Church He might be moved by the authority of the Church though not resolved in his Faith by the Infallibility pretended according to this proportion must all his discourse be understood which proceeds from his belief of the Gospel by them to his being perswaded by them to Manichaeism if any thing should be found in the Gospel towards it or else proceeds to his not believing of Manichaeus upon his belief of the Catholicks who bad him believe the Gospel and not Manichaus These must be the hinges upon which the whole disputation must turn and therefore if those words be not understood of an ultimate determination of his Faith by the authority of the Church but of an instrumental moving nothing will be concluded sufficient and sufficiently for you But this answer you give not me any return to Ponder it very well for its importance in this debate For if the whole chapter was soberly spoken and if that he did not speak of himself as when he was a Manichaeu yet if he here intends to signifie no more then onely the authority of the Church was an impulsive to the belief of the Gospel you will evince no more then what you need not contend for because we do not contend against it as being not the state of the question Therefore it remains for you to prove your supposition or your proofs of an Infallible authority of the Church which indeed you would put in in your conclusions but is wanting in the premises And if it did belong to me to dispute it were not difficult to shew the contrary And since they may come in upon account of the reason of my denial they shall be there two moments from the chapter First Because he saith he did believe the Gospel per illos not propter Now what we do properly believe any one in we must believe for him not by him for him as a cause not by him as an instrument and therefore we believe what God sayes to be true not by him but for him And if the Apostles as he sayes were not 〈◊〉 of their Faith 2 Cor. 1â— 14 then were not those Catholicks he speaks of such as he ought for themselves to believe Secondly Because in several places of the chapter he doth signifie that if any reason could be given or any thing whereby it might be manifestly known that his Adversary were in the right he would leave his Catholicks Now this is not spoken consistently to the nature of Faith upon Infallible authority for what we do believe in way of Faith we do so believe as there cannot be a falsity in it as Aquinas doth confesse and I suppose you too for you would conclude no falsity or error can be in any thing which the Church doth define because it is infallible and therefore all the Reason and all the Science in the world are not able to shake Faith whereunto the contrary is intimated in the Father Nay if there be no arguing to the principles of Faith from other principles but from the principles of Scripture there is arguing to Divine conclusions then assuredly Faith in principles of Theology as this is one the verity of the Gospel is not obnoxious to any decay by any reasons And it seems his Faith then in the Gospel was not Divine upon the consideration of their authority since Reason may be valid against Humane authority but not Divine so that had he meant he built his Faith of the Gospel upon the authority infallible of the Church there had been no place for Reason to have any power of assent on the behalf of the Manichees Again if you hold to the Gospel my hold shall still be to the authority of the Church upon whose authority I believed the Gospel I saith he will hold my self to those by whose teaching I have believed the Gospel and there commanding me I will not believe thee So you think that this is also available for you surely nothing lesse for besides that you omit much of his connexion that makes for my former argument and also that â—â—â—kes against your rash and blind believing besides that you may understand that here he doth not compare the authority of the Church with the autopisty of Scripture which is the 〈◊〉 of the controversie but he doth compare the authority of the Catholicks as towards the belief of the Gospel with the authority of the Manichees as to believe their false Gospel of Manichaeus Indeed the authority of the Church is more urged and is more usefull to prevail aboâ—â—e or against the authority of private opposites but wâ—â— that it hath the moment of credibility above or equally to the authority of Scripture it self is that which is an question and is not here determined for you But you go on And Saint Austin goeth on so far upon this ground as a ground Infallible What of Faith it is again denyed not onely simply but it is denyed to be held so by him in this discourse If you may have your suppositions we must needs soon have done Well go on That he saith if perhaps you Manichaâ—us can find me any clear place in the Gospel to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus that then indeed they shall weaken the authority of the Catholicks So he â—aith And what can you make of this
Crimen falsi for I do not see upon the place any half Syllables out of which you may draw any such interpretative Confession I have often upon your occasion said the contrary that the authority of the Church cannot be the cause of faith And therefore whether you have any faith of the Articles of Religion or of Scripture in all your Church is more easie to be found then said And assuredly though we talk of faith in the world the greatest part of it is but opinion which takes religion upon the credit of man and not of Scripture And as for us we have also the authority of the Church Catholick to move our judgement and Scripture to settle our faith And we are more related to the foure General Councils in consanguinitie of Doctrine as he said then your Church now And now at the end of all you doe fairly rebate the edge of your censure of my Expression namely Excesse of Faith But you say my distinction doth no way salve the improprietie of my Speech For there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects But granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that sense it is not truely said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing that which God hath said So then by my Distinctions which is your School of Fides Subjectiva fides Objectiva fides Qua fides Quae there may be an Excesse of Faith in the Object if we beleive more then God hath said supposing we can believe what God hath not said although there be not an excess of faith in the Subject for we cannot have too much faith in that which is to be believed But the quarrel against the speech was not becacause it was not proper enough and congruous in this Discourse but because of the Application of it to you as it now appears and therefore here would you vindicate the Church in this upon the same ground of infallibilitie and therefore for your Faith in whatsoever you believe you have this Warrant Thus saith the Lord. But since this infallibilitie of yours you cannot have without begging of the question even to the last nor shall have it surely by begging you are yet to finde out some Expedience of Means or Arguments how to preserve your selves from that just charge of Excesse of Faith and the chief of that kind is that you speak of your infallibilitie for which you have not Thus saith the Lord. How then do you prove it by Tradition And how do you prove Tradition by the infallibility of the Church Therefore go not to Faith about by a circumference If you have a desire to rest your judgement and your soul in certain infallibilitie by your own word then center in Scripture from which all Lines of Truth are drawn and dismisse Tradition as your men state it for which this infallibilitie was devised and yet cannot be maintained for it cannot maintain it self You close with a passage of Saint Austin If so the words you intend it to set out your Charity to the Church of Christ not to perswade my Faith in its infallibilitie I may love the Church without infallibility because though I doe not love Errour yet must I love the Church when it is in Errour And this gives you occasion to think well of this respective and full answer to your last Paper Excuse me that it was so long ere it came and yet not much above the space of yours and also so long now it is come Onely let me leave you with a Father or two in whose company you are delighted Tertullian in his Prescript cap. 8. We have no need of Curiositie after Christ nor further Inquisition after the Gospell When we believe we desire to believe nothing beyond For this we first believe that there is not any thing beyond which we ought to believe Again against Hermog cap. 22. I adore the plenitude of Scripture And a little after Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina If it be not written let him fear that woe appointed for those who adde or take away And Saint Austin in his 2. book De Doc. Christiana cap. 9. In iis enim quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt Amongst those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture are found all those things which contain Faith and Manners of Living to wit Hope and Charitie For the excellent modification of Scripture in the 6. chapter Magnifice igitur salubriter Sp. Sanctus ita Scripturas Sanitas modificavit ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur And the same in the 7. chapter for the second Degree or step to Wisedome He saith Deinde opus est mitescere Pietate neque Contradicere Divinae Scripturae sive intellectae si aliqua vitia nostra percutit sive non intellectae quasi nos melius sapere meliusque percipere possimus sed cogitare potius credere id esse melius verius quod ibi scriptum est etiamsi lateat quam id quod nos per nos met-ipsos sapere possumus And again Saint Austin contra Literas Petit. Lib. 3. cap. 6. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit Si Angelus de Coelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis Anathema sit Consider what is said and the Lord give you understanding in all things To the Reader How in these times in which there be so many Religions the true Religion may certainly be found out 1. A Satisfactory Answer to this Title will alone put an end to the endless controversies of these dayes This made me think my labour well bestowed in treating this point somewhat largely And because that Treatise hath received a very large answer the examining of this answer will make the Truth yet more apparent That this may be done more clearly I will briefly tell you the Order I intend to observe in the examination of the said answer And because this answer directly followeth the same Order which I observed in treating the question prefixed in my Title Therefore when I have shewed you the Order of that Treatise you will clearly see that I shall most orderly answer the Reply against it 2. That Treatise had a short Preface to tell the intent of it My first Chapter must then be the Examination of what is said against this Preface Again that Treatise did shew five things First it did shew the necessity of a Judge to whom all are bound to submit Secondly That Scripture alone did not suffice to decide all necessary Controversies without a living Judge to
the 17. Numb Thirdly that this Judge could be no other then the true Church to the 21. Numb Fourthly that the true Church is infallible in her judging points of Faith to the 17. Numb Fifthly That this true Church which is our infallible Judge is the Roman Church to 29 and last Numb Lastly followed the Conclusion My answer therefore must have five more chapters to shew the Reply made against that Treatise to be unsatisfactory in every particular argument opposed against me in all these five points 3. There might have been added another chapter to examine what my adversary saith concerning the Conclusion of my Treatise But as he himself Page 112. observeth very well he might have spared his Reply against my Conclusion because it containeth no new thing appertaining to the main Controversie but it was made onely to shew that in the handling of the main Controversie I had answered all his paper which I did there run over in order And therefore in his answers to all I had said about the main Controversie he had given up his answers to all that which is onely run over again in the conclusion Neither know I any reason that I gave him to fansie as he saith he doth that I should either think a good cause wanting to him or him wanting to a good cause unlesse he had answered my Conclusion apart though something were in it not said before by me and some few things in which I charge him But Sir that which I stand upon is the main question and the proof or disproof of it Nor will I judge so hardly of you as to think you will conceive either my cause worse or me a worse defender of it because I tire not my self and my Reader with our personal debates when they concern not the main question in which both of us have been so large And so as you thought you might have ended when you came to that conclusion so I think I may well end when I have answered those hundred Pages and more which I met with before I come thither though there still remained something which concerned our private debates For if that which hath been said before doth not satisfie no great satisfaction will be added by going on a little further in the same strain in matters lesse to the matter The first CHAPTER The Answer to my Preface Confuted 1. YOur first words intimate that you fear least your silence should make me seem to my self or others to have got the Victory Sir your Reply is most welcome in this respect that it doth more help me then your silence could not to seem to have got but really to get that Victory which I desire not to my selfe but to truth For the examination of your Reply will serve for a Touch-stone to my Arguments I will follow you as you desire step after step and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. To shew the necessity of treating the matter I had undertaken I said that such a manner of reading the Scripture as is permitted by you to all sorts of people with so unlimited a Licence to interpret them according to their own private judgement of discretion as a thing most apt to cause a numberlesse number of Sects and Heresies A priori this is proved thus You permit any Artificer who can read to take the Bible into his hand and to take it for his sole and onely Iudge of all necessary Controversies And though all the force and efficacy of the words of Scripture consist in the true sence and sincere Interpretation of it yet when all comes to all you leave this Interpretation to be made by every Reader though never so unskilful with so great Latitude that though a General Council of the greatest Doctors which could be gathered together should have defined such and such a point for undoubted true Doctrine and to be held so according to Scripture yet you permit any Cobler to make a Review of this Decree and if he hearing all that can be said on the one side and on the other judgeth at last that the whole Councel hath erred in interpreting Scripture you leave him free to hold himself so strongly to his own interpretation as if it were the true sence of Gods Word neither will you hear of any Obligation which he hath interiorly to submit his judgement which is the seat of true faith or errour to any other Iudge upon earth For surely if he be left by your Principles so free in the choice of his interpretation of Scripture as not to be obliged to submit interiorly to a whole General Council he hath far greater freedom in not being obliged to submit to any other private Doctours Is not this to leave men in a mighty hazard of misunderstanding Gods Word and falling into Heresie Secondly the same is proved a posteriori in those places where the sacred Scriptures are thus prostituted not only to the bare reading but also to the interpretation of every profane and ignorant fellow I still mean when he shall have heard or seen what can be alledged on all sides there and onely there Sects have multiplied and do multiply beyond measure 3. Neither do any of your arguments prove this not to be the true cause of Heresies and bad life which followeth Heresie First it is so far from being contrary to that Text You erre not knowing the Scripture that it is most agreeable to it For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of Scripture is to permit such and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures as are most fit to erre in the interpretation of them especially being licensed to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority of the Church if these stand in their way And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding The knowledge of Scripture If the works of these famous Physitions Galen and Hipocrates were thrust into all Trades-mens hands and every one of them were licensed to interpret as they sincerely thought best would you call this The knowledge of Physick especially if every one might be permitted to hold his interpretation against a General Assembly of most learned Physitians Secondly you in vain object that of Saint Paul That the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation Far was it from the intention of Saint Paul to speak of the Scriptures interpreted by every giddy fansie for thus they may be the occasion of our damnation Saint Paul said they were able to make Timothie wise to salvation because he was a man who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of to wit by the Oral tradition of the Doctours of the Church A man knowing of whom he had learned these things and these traditions Let such men read Scriptures and let them with such interpretations understand them and they will make them wise to salvation and to continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church and never to
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
the letter doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from Captivitie Ans And I see no reason to the contrary if we consider several expressions in that place which carry that scope and also if we consider that ordinarily at least when any thing is prophecied mystically of the Church Christian in the old Instrument it is yet true in the letter of the Jews And also thirdly If we will take notice of the Septuagint who render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that are dispersed shall walke amongst them and not erre And if you take this version to be the Septuagints you may know they knew the text as well as the Latine Church Therefore this you would suppose and argue upon it If he did direct the Jewish Church by a way so direct that fools could not erre by it there can be no good reason why he should be lesse carefull to direct the ignorant of the Church of Christ Ans My Adversary did not consider that if it be understood of the Jewish Nation it is not presently to be understood of the Jewish Church under that formality It may be intended of them in the civill sense and not in their Ecclesiasticall respect and then we cannot argue from a temporall promise made to the Jew to a Spirituall promise made to the Christian though men are bold to make such accommodations For then might we of our own power make a mystical sense of Scripture wherein one thing should by Divine intention signifie another thing this we cannot do for then mysticall Divinitie should be Argumentative which is denied even by the Pontificians Yet he goes on Yet I thinke it is sure that this is not the true Interpretation For when did the blinde see the deaf hear when did then God come himself and save us Ans It may be understood in the letter and yet some expressions be hyperbolical Yea those expressions may be understood in the letter without any hyperbolicalnesse as that those who never thought to see or heare of such a Redemption actual should see and heare of it should not onely heare of it but see it Secondly When do we heare of vengance and recompence spoken of ver 4. And drie ground and pools and habitation of Dragons and a place for reeds and rushes spoken of ver the 7. to be in the Church Christian in a spirituall sense Put one to the other and which of them hath more moment And to the other question when did then God come himself and save us We answer this makes no Scruple of such an Interpretation of it to the Jew neither because it is said he will come nor because it is said he will save Not the first nor the second for the first is as ordinarie as the terme save is usuall in the old Instrument for the temporall sense Wherefore had Joshua his name from the same root was he to be a spirituall Saviour It is true he was typicall of Christ Jesus but he was typicall by a temporal deliverance yea even the Greek word is sometimes used for a temporall salvation in the new Testament as Mat. 8.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Master save us we perish yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly is rendered Saviour when applied to Christ is sometimes applied to God in the new Testament in a temporall sense as is noted rationally by some Criticks and particulary in that text some give an instance thereof 1 Ep. to Tim. 4.10 Who is the Saviour of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially of those that believe He is the Saviour of all in a temporall sense specially of those who believe And thus Estius upon the text would carrie it for which exposition he names Chrysostom Oecumenius Ambrosianus Anselme And he said positively constat autem ex aliis Scripturae locis c. it is manifest also out of other places of Scripture that the term of salvation is understood of the good things of the temporall life So he upon the place He proceeds And if you will have our Saviour himself to be this way as he said I am the truth and the way this self same Saviour said I who am this way am with you to the consummation of the world to wit directing my Church the right way to Salvation of which direction the Church now hath no lesse need than then Ans He supposeth that which is not granted nor yet doth he go about to prove it that it is to be understood by Divine intention of the Christian Church objective This is not to be allowed unlesse mysticall Divinity were in the nature of it argumentative And my second answer to this text wherein I referred it to the time of Christ in way of supposition if it were at all to be referred to the time of the Christian Church according to Isider Clarius and St. Jerom. he cannot well deny but will argue from it that the Church hath no lesse need of direction now than then Ans This Reply hath no strength of reason in it for the foundation of Christianitie was then to be layd which foundation personall was Christ then it was to be built upon the foundation ministeriall the Apostles also as St. Paul speakes Eph. 2.20 The new Testament was not then written the propagation of the Gospell was not then made Christian Doctrine was not universally received And therefore then was there more need of infalible direction by Christ and his Apostles than now And this really answereth your supposition that such an infalible direction which by our Saviour was promised to the Church by the Apostles should alwaies continue in the Church whereas it is not so necessary by necessitie of meane or end And therefore can we not make a demonstration of it a causa finali because it is not necessary for the end of Salvation Deus nec deficit in necessariis nec abundat in superfluis as he said he is neither wanting in necessaries nor is abundant in superfluities But this passage must be made good by them or all is lost therefore he goes on And as we could not securely have put a limitation to those words of Joel namely concerning the powring out of the spirit if St. Peter had not secured us of the true sense so cannot you limit these words not having the like warrant for it Ans So then first Are those words of Joel limited Yes he confesseth it and it is so plain by St. Peter in the second of the Acts that it cannot be denied Upon this confession we dispute If those words of St. Peter be limited then also the other text Mat. 28. last I am with you to the end of the world is also limited The consequence is it may be demanded It is given thus If the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not now to be expected as then then can we not now pretend infalibilitie as then because this is a speciall gift of the Holy Ghost Therefore have we no
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
way as is known but this we shall have fuller occasion to speake of hereafter Secondly whereas he saies that I say by meer reading of Scripture c. he supposeth that which is not so For I do not deny the use of other meanes to further us towards our assent intrinsecall arguments from Scripture extrinsecall of the Church but that which privately we resolve our faith of Scripture to be the word of God in is the autopistie of Scripture which God by faith infused shews unto us And by Catarinus his reasoning in the Trent Council about subjective certitude of grace private faith is not inferior to the Catholick faith in point of certaintie but onely in universalitie Thirdly the Church according to my Adversary hath its power of binding to faith by a Generall Council with the Popes confirmation of the Decrees then let us know by what Council all the parts of Scripture were confirmed by a Generall Council with the Popes consent for the first six hundred years somewhat might be put in as towards the use of some parts of the Apocryphall books but it doth not appear that they were canonized as to faith nor any of the Canonicall books declared by them as quo ad nos authentick For they were wont to meddle with little but emergent questions whereas of those parts of Scripture which were generally received there was no question whether they were the word of God And being not received by the authoritie of a Council establishing them what ground have those who differ from us to receive them since they say the infallible Authoritie is in the Church Representative with the Popes confirmation He goes on And it must be a far surer discoverie than that by which we discover the Sun by his light for this discovery can onely ground a naturall certaintie the other must ground a supernaturall not certainty but infallibilitie Ans The supernaturall habit of faith hath it felf more to intelligence than to science Intelligence is known to be that naturall habit whereby the understanding is disposed to assent to the truth of principles when the terms of those principles are known And faith doth beare more proportion to this as being the supernaturall habit in regard of cause whereby we are disposed to believe supernaturall verities whereof the first is by our opinion that the Scripture is the word of God taking the Scripture materially Now as the principles naturall are seen through their own light by the naturall habit of intelligence so are the supernatural principles seen through their own light by the supernaturall habit of faith And as certainly as I see the Sun by its light with mine eye so certainly do I see the truth of naturall principles by the naturall habit of intelligence and as certainly as I see the veritie of naturall principles by intelligence so do I see supernaturall verities by the supernaturall habit of faith yet not so evidently as I see the Sun by its light or naturall principles through their light But it seems by my Adversary that this will not serve for he urgeth not onely for a certainty but infallibilitie To this we answer first Take certaintie properly and I think there is no fundamentum in re for this distinction It may be because we are wont to use the term of infallibilitie to points of faith we think that whatsoever is certain is not infallible and it is true in regard of the manner or meane of certaintie so that whatsoever is certain is not infallible for so certaintie seems to be more generall but certainly whatsoever is to us certaine is also infallible as we take it in a generall sense But secondly if there be any degree of infallibilitie above certaintie we have it by this way of Divine faith infused by the Spirit of God because we are most sure of this principle that God cannot deceive nor be deceived therefore what we take upon his word we are most certain of and more than by our own discourse and reason for that is in the nature of it more imperfect Thirdly this is not so wisely considered to straine our faith to the highest peg of utmost infallibilitie as they determine the ground of it namely the Authoritie of the Church because the Authoritie of it as it is contradistinguished to the Spirit and word is but humane and as it is resolved into the word by the Spirit so it comes into a coincidence with us Fourthly whereas he sometimes upbraided us with an essentiall defect of faith because we take it not by their way of the Church it appeares yet that some of our Church have in case of martyrdome held the faith of Scripture and of points taken from thence as infallibly as they have held Scripture upon tenure of the Church And it seems ours did not hold the Scripture or the points upon the authoritie of the Church for they differed from the Ponteficians unto the death about the Church and about points of Doctrine which the Papist urged they denied notwithstanding they were Doctrines of their Church Now according to the Pontifician argument if they had received the Scripture by the Authoritie of the Church they must upon the same reason have received every Doctrine proposed by the Church And therefore it seems they had a faith of Scripture infallible without the Roman infallibilitie Secondly the Spirit of God speaking in the Church is to them the efficient of faith But the Spirit of God speaks also in the Scripture If not how do they prove that the Spirit of God speakes in the Church if it does then may we believe him at first word and immediately as to the Church As to what he saith secondly that he hath shewed in his last chap. second Num. that a review of the definitions of a Council untill they be resolved into the rule of Scripture doth open a wide gap to heresie I need say no more than what hath been said in answer thereunto His meer saying so doth not surely make it so nor is it probable for it doth not open a gap to heresie materiall because Scripture is the rule of truth nor yet to heresie formall because it may be done without opposition to the Councils For simple dissent doth not include formall opposition But yet further he saith And for your importance of the matter I will here further declare in an example which hereafter will stand me in much use Let us take an Arrian Cobler to this man This your Doctrine giveth the finall review of the Council of Nice Ans Yes I must interpose in the severall passages of his storie of the case it doth but how It doth not give a review by way of authoritie to others but he is to take his own libertie for his own satisfaction in point of faith Otherwise he believes he knows not what and so in proportion he comes under the censure of Christ upon the Samaritan woman in the 4. of St. John the 22. Ye
worship ye know not what If the woman was not to be ruled by the judgement of the Samaritans why is a Cobler to be ruled by the authoritie of others since simply the authoritie of the Samaritans was as good as the authoritie of others and therefore our faith must be resolved into some higher ground than the authoritie of men He goes on in his case And you give him leave after he hath perused the definitions of this Council defining God the Son to be of the self same individuall substance with his Father to examine them untill he find them resolved into the infallible rule of Scripture Ans Yes we say he may take his own liberty to do so But also we say he ought to conferre with those who are learned that he may more easily finde the sense of Scripture the advice he takes from others doth not determine his assent but disposeth it It doth point him to it but he must see it with his own sight He doth examine them and chiefly how they doe agree with that text St. John the 10. chap. 30. verse I and my Father are one on which text you afterwards confesse the infallibilitie of this definition to be chiefly grounded Ans So did St. Athanasius professe as I told him in my last rejoinder and he doth not say any thing in deniall But as to the point as being clear in Scripture there are other texts plain enough as in the first Epistle of St. John the fifth chap. the twentieth verse in his son Jesus Christ this is the true God Indeed the whole verse is for our purpose And we know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding that we should know him that is true And we are in him that is true in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God He hath given us a mind that we should know Here is faith infused whereby we know him and therefore is not this faith an effect of the authoritie of the Church And this son is here said to be the true God not onely God nuncupatively as the Arrians and Socinians but the true God So Bartholomeus Petrus who makes the Supplement to Estius's Comment upon the Epistles and subjects all to the holy Roman Church Et nihil ominus etiam Filius ab Apostolo verbis expressis nominatur verus Deus parte hujus versus quarta quae sequitur hic est verus Deus So he And notwithstanding also the Son is named by the Apostle in expresse words the true God in the fourth part of this verse this is the true God Now in the examen of the conformitie of this definition with this text the Arrian Cobler by his poor understanding is easily able to see that which a wiser man would yet see sooner that he is put upon a necessitie to inquire how God the Son and his Father are one whether it be by affection onely as Arrians hold or one in the self same individuall Substance as the Council defineth Well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then This is no other than that which stands with our duty of obedience to that precept in the first Ep. to the Thes 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good And secondly were we to rest in the definition of Councils yet should we be put upon inquiry into the sense of their words which would make a trouble and a difference as the words of the Trent Council did to Soto and Viga And therefore if he could prejudice our cause with perplexities of ambiguities neither are they certain by their own Councils which sense to stand to since these learned men so eagerly combated upon different senses of the words of the Council upon the Decrees about Free-will and Predestination and though they had their interesse in the Council for learning and estimation yet it seems did not know the onely sense and true scope of the Synod as is said of them in the History of the Trent Council p. 216. My Adversary goes on And inquiring this he cals to mind that other text John the 17.21 Where Christ prayeth all his Disciples may be one thing as thou Father in me and I in thee So then let him proceed with the caution of this rule res non est subject a sermoni sed sermo rei The thing is not serviceable to the speech but the speech to the thing Here will the Cobler say because he hath been often instructed by his own Doctors Christ who said I and my Father are one thing demandeth that his Disciples may be one thing as he and his Father are one thing but he doth not demand that his Disciples may be all one thing in the self same individuall substance therefore he concludes Christ is not one thing in the self same individuall substance with his Father but one thing in affection onely as his Disciples might come to be one thing Ans But this Cobler if he had more mind to finde truth in Scripture than his own opinion might goe on and see that the Jews who were like to understand the words of Christ as observing what was said by him to them understood Christ not to speak that they were one by way of affection For because of this speech they took up stones to cast at him because he being a man made himself God as it is in the 33 ver of the 10. ch of St. John Which interpretation of his words our Saviour did not in the following verses deny although he seemed to wave that sense and yet also in effect brought it in by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 38 ver Secondly although if there had been no other text concerning Christ's Divinity there would not have been so clear a conclusion from the text of the Divinity of Christ yet if we compare it with other passages of the Scriptures we may well believe that sense and also if the text doth not afford that sense how shall we believe a Council when the Councill of Nice as Athanasius said urged this text thrice against the Arrians And therefore this exception against the sufficient clearnesse of Scripture in this point must be withdrawn or else they must condemne themselves because the Council of Nice determined the point not by their authority but by the text And therefore cannot the Cobler say as my Adversary prompts him false therefore is this definition of the Council which cannot be resolved into the infallible word of God in which all things necessary to Salvation as this point is are plainly set down as this place is not My Adversary first might have spoken more moderately not false is it therefore which the Council hath defined but not necessary because the sense of the words may be such when they are spoken betwixt God or him and his Disciples therefore they are such between his Father and him this is no rationall inference Duo cum idem dicunt non est idem When
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
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
put me in minde again that I cannot credit it to be the Word of God by virtue of the Translation since according to my opinion Translations are onely so far Gods Word as they agree with the Originals but we have onely Translations of S. Matthews Gospel no Original at all This we have in places before spoken to But suppose no Original Copie of Saint Matthews Gospel yet this makes no impossibility of belief in Stapletons judgement because we may believe immediately without the interposal of the Church And the Translation is considerable as an Instrument to represent the Object not to help the Effect it hath more relation to the fides quae than the fides quâ to the Faith objective rather than the Faith subjective So that I do not believe the sense to be true for the Translation but I beleve the Translation true because it agrees with the Sense And he that made the Originall can Supply it Again they belive the Gospel of St Matthew Do they not how do they believe it by the authority of the Church Well but what authority had the Church either operative or declarative to make or declare that to be Scripture which was not Scripture they say then the Church can make translations and particularly the vulgar latin to be authentique but the vulgar is not absolutely authentique by confession of their own men And besides the best reason which could be had it been true of the vulgar was this that that should be authentique because it was made by the original copies before they were corrupted Yea but my adversaries say there was no original copie of St. Matthews Gospel or if there was they are worthy to die as David said of Abner because they have kept their Master no better Are they now the Church unto which perfidia non potest habere accessum no unfaithfulness can have access Again if there was not an original copie or no copie of the original how shall we believe their Church to be infallible since the chief place of strength for their Church is found in that Gospel 16. Ch. 18. as Perron would think Suppose the question then be made how they prove their infallibility by Scripture answer is made by the 16. of St. Matt. the 18. Well but we must know it first to be the word of God before they prove their Church infallible by it Now they are at as great a loss as we for they cannot prove that Text to be the word of God by the infallibility of the Church because the infallibility of the Church is in question if that be not before hand assured to us that it is the word of God If then at length they have a mind to rest themselves in common argumentative principles and resolve their perswasion of it to be the word of God upon the credit of universal tradition so do we as to this kind of perswasion Whereas then they say It is uncertain who the Translator was and of what skill and honesty we answer this makes more against them For if a Divine Faith be necessary as they mightily assert then it is reason that we should less relie upon humane arguments which make but humane faith and therefore for our private assurance should believe it upon Gods own authority To that they say If there were one Hebrew Copie then in St. Ierom's time what is that to our purpose now I answer first that this may abate their confidence of an absolute negative 2. If those of Beraea did gratifie St. Ierom with the use of that Hebrew Copy it is very probable that as the former Beraeans were diligent in searching the Scriptures whether those things spoken by St. Paul were true so those would take care to consign it â—o posterity if there was but that one copie thereof 3. If he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans to describe it as before then surely of that Autograph St. Ierome would have made an Apograph he would have made another copy And 4. If the translation they so much brag of were his they know what skill and honesty the Translator was of So then they are brought to this either to take my answer or to deny their translation which they will And all their shifts will not help them N. 47. Here he would put me out of my shifts as he calls them I asked them how they were sure of their latin interpretation to be authentique they say now by tradition of former ages Well but we are satisfied thus also by way of argument concerning the Scriptures and in particular concerning the Gospel of St. Matthew We say also that we are infallibly satisfied herein by the Spirit of God And this way of faith I hope we may assert we may believe what we cannot prove as they believe that Roman Faith which they cannot prove But he saies we are incapacitated to make use of tradition This tradition doth not certâ—fie you because you hold it fallible So then Crede quod habes habes Is this a sufficient argumentation And so consequently it is infallible to you because you hold it infallible So it must it seems be You do not hold it because it is infallible but it is infallible because you hold it And thus infallibility shall not make faith but opinion shall make infallibility I had thought before that verity had been fundamentally in things and that things had not been true because we conceive them so but our conceits had been true because things are so Surely it is a better argument that the Roman Faith cannot be certified to them because their principles are uncertain as hath been shewed then that tradition cannot certifie us because we hold it fallible If it be infallible we are as sure as they in the certitude of the object though because we think it fallible we are not certain certitudine subjecti in the certitude of the subject valeat quantum valere potest And why would they have us sure of our faith in the certainty of the subject and yet scarce allow a certainty of salvation in the certitude of the object But then 2. They are sure by the tradition of former ages namely universal tradition they mean do they not if so universal traditition includes all places then how comes infallibility to be the prerogative of their Church when they are to prove their faith by universal tradition 3. It seems they do not hold tradition to be infallible and therefore by their own argument it cannot certifie them since that which was held in the Church universally for the first ages they do not now hold as they have been told namely the millenary opinion infant communion standing up in prayer from Easter to Whitsuntide Yea why do they not stand up altogether at prayer as was appointed by a Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. If they mean the terme certifie as infallibly we grant it if they mean it morally we deny it and therefore if they
so they must at length rest in our Principles In this num beside somewhat in the beginning N. 48. answered before he would very fain repair the credit of the vulgar Latin which I had broken by an instance of Gen. 3.15 where it reads ipsa for ipsum referring to the Mother what belongs to the Son To this he saies It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be translated ipsum How know you the Church followed the false Hebrew copie Satis caute Some copies Not all May be Not are Most exactly be translated not some most exact copies Well Are not these copies the greater number And indeed are they not the most exact yea can they truly be translated otherwise and how know they that their Church followed the true Hebrew copie If it did not follow it infallibly or if they cannot know infallibly that it did follow it infallibly infallibly they are undone because they are upon terms of an infallible faith in an infallible Church Therefore though we can shake their foundation by our question they cannot settle their foundation by their question And yet we have another question He asks again How many most grave and most antient Fathers have also read ipsa Surely he does well to ask how many because he does not know how few Their names may they not be written in a nut shel and Bellarmin upon the place hath not many for it And some of them surely not most grave and also most ancient Fathers But as for St. Austin Bellarmin might as well or better have left him out of the Catalogue For though he renders it ipsa in his 11. de Gen. ad literam c. 36. and in another place yet he doth not expound it as they of the Virgin for he makes it to be mystically understood Significatur semine diaboli perversa semine autem mulieris fructus boni operis illa observat caput ejus ut eum in ipso initio malae suasionis excludat He might also have omitted St. Ambrose in his 2. b. de fuga saeculi cap. 7. for there he interprets it morally not referring it to the Virgin And both of them also differ from the Hebrew and their vulgar in the other words and follow the Septuagint For they translate it ipsa servabit caput tuum which doth not agree with the Hebrew with which the vulgar in this doth agree But Bellarmine also nameth St. Chrysostom in his 17. homily upon Gen. But then they must have some other edition of him if they will make use of his testimony for them For in three places of this homily he renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which he would think it may be to be for this use is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And not her alone the woman but I will make her seed to be a perpetual enemy to thy seed Yet upon this he doth immediately subjoyne the text as before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Bellarmin doth not yet bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed all they can do is much too little to cure this breach For S. Ierom is more considerable in this criticism than all the Fathers named And he saies melius in Hebraeo ipse conteret caput tuum Nay Bellarmin in the place quoted by him saith he had seen one copy he speaks of no more as he would surely if he had could and yet doth not tell us where So that to speak at least de communi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this reading ipsa is not agreeable to the Hebrew copies Nay Bellarmin doth sweat at it and therefore saies some copies of the vulgar Latin do interpret it ipse in the former Chap. And this makes a new difficulty on their part to reconcile the contrariety to the infallibility of the Church in both The Church was deceived in one and where then is their infallibility they speak of This is their modesty then against the gender in the Hebrew against the Samaritan Syriack Arabick translations which referre it to the seed against all Hebrew copies which Bellarmin had seen but one against some of their own copies of the vulgar Latin to make that Scripture for the Creature which belongs to the Son of God And also whether the Fathers most grave and most antient are for their interpretation we have examined and therefore he needed not be so plain as to say it was a loud lie of Chemnitius to say the contrary And will they say so to Lucas Brugensis who saies as much as Chemnitius in this point almost all the Fathers do read ipse as is noted Let me then say it would become them here to give glory to Christ immediately and to confess this fault And yet neither doth he competently answer to the question made to him why the Greek was not made infallibly the Church as well as the Latin That we have his declaration that the Latin vulgar is authentique and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners this he saies but this will not serve as may appear thus A translation of that which is not authentique cannot be authentique now let them determine whether it was made authentique or not If not made authentique being a translation as they say then how can the Latin be so declared an authentique translation for then the Church must have vim operativam too not onely declaratory and the effect shall exceed the material cause Or if it was declared authentique what of an infallible translation 2. Whereas he saies therefore it is not deficient in any point necessarie to faith and manners To wit the Latin translation we take notice of it that these words have a sense in them intended for their use namely not to be understood absolutely as if there were no error at all therein but restrictively specificatively no such errour but that it may be sufficient to direct us in faith and manners So then when he hath made use of his own words for his own turne we will make use of them for our purpose and we will not squeese them neither The first corollarie then from these words of his is this that he dares not stand to an absolute infallibilitie of the Church in every point whatsoever and therefore by Mr. Knott's argument he must abate of his former postulate of it's being the ground and cause of faith 2. Thus much we may as well or better say for our translation that it is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners 3. It semes then salvation is not in danger by some errours otherwise their translation should be deficent in points necessarie to faith and manners and therefore we need not upon danger of salvation have an infallible Judge to decide all points emergent 4. Things necessarie to faith and manners are sufficiently set down in scripture for otherwise the Latin translation must be deficient or else it must have more then the
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
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
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
Judge Is there no more likely-hood of a figurative sense in the words then there is of the being of an Accident without the Subject or of the Body of Christ to be in Heaven and on Earth and in thousands of places at once But you contend the improbability of this sense because he took the Bread and the Cup in his hand and said this is my Body and this is my Bloud Surely this makes no prejudice against us for this was necessary towards the consecrating of that Bread and that Wine otherwise there would have been a Consecration of Bread and VVine in Communi and therefore he spoke demonstratively and this demonstration makes the Subject no lesse capable of a figure then the Praedicate and what difference Behold the Lamb of God or this is the Lamb of God So in the 9. to the Hebrews and the 20. verse Moses having taken the Bloud of Calves and Goats said This is the Bloud of the Testament VVas that Bloud transubstantiated into the Bloud of Christ or when one takes his Testament may he not say this is my VVill although it be but the signe of his Will You take notice also of the different opinions there are about the sense of the words of Institution We have no cause to take it to our selves who have not such variety of conceits therein Neither can you I am sure justifie your Infallibility by your accord herein since some question whether it be transubstantiated and therefore have they a proviso of a conditionate adoration Adoro te si tu es Christus and so many amongst you differ about the manner of the change whether by production which supposeth as is noted the Body not to praeexiste and this is false or by adduction which supposeth against Transubstantiation or by a kinde of Conservative Conversion which is little else then a Contradiction in adjecto therefore answer your self How is it more clearly defined by the Church which was scarce in debate till the time of Berengarius Did the Church all that while want necessaries to Salvation But lastly you should not have pleaded Scripture for this point on your side if you will believe Scotus and your Cardinal Bellarmine who sayes that Scotus held Transubstantiation could not be clearly proved by any Text of Scripture and he himself thinks it not improbable Therefore herein you cannot in their judgement convince us by Scripture and therefore till the Church be Infallible it is no doctrine of Faith as it was not before the Lateran Council as Scotus affirmed by Bellarmins Confession in the 23. chapter of the third Book De Sacramento Eucharistia but if Transubstantiation be not declared in Scripture then our opinion negative to you is more secure and is not concluded not to be in Scripture though you or others will not professe it In the former part of your 15. Number you go over a former argument again to which the former answer may serve As for the other part of your Paragraph concerning all the points of Saint Athanasius's Creed which are not clearly delivered in Scripture and yet he that will be saved must think thus I answer Although the matter of them be not in terminis found in Scripture yet the sense of them according to aequivalence may as well as Transubstantiation when you will endevour to make it out by Scripture Secondly Although we believe what is said in his Creed yet therefore are we not bound to believe it by the Authority of the Church since he would have held it although the Church had not as he did sometimes differ from the common profession of the Church in the Consubstantiality of the Son of God In the beginning of the 16. Paragraph you say somewhat which you had said before to it we say nothing but you raise a new opposition Baptisme of Children to be necessary to their Salvation is a prime point of Belief and yet you cannot believe this prime point of Belief by any clear place of Scripture therefore you mean all necessary points are not clearly believed by Scripture therefore by the Church this must be your dissertation and your minor proposition you confirme by the Testimony of Saint Austin We Answer first to your Major by distinguishing a necessity of Baptisme in general it is necessary by necessity of precept but it is not necessary by necessity of mean to the child so as that if it be not baptized it is undoubtedly damned the former respects the Parents that they should take care of it for their children but if they do not or the child be taken away as many are before it can be done by a lawful Minister we cannot conclude it or them absolutely perished since it is not so necessary to them that were of age at the Primitive Institution Saint Mark the 16.16 Whosoever beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned not also and is not Baptized For many there were and cases might be put that there might be more which could not have Baptisme before they died as appears by your Vicarium Baptisma which the Fathers speaks of Then though we may well assure our selves that if Infants rightly Baptized die such they are certainly saved yet can we not as reasonably passe the Verdict of Damnation upon those which are not Baptized As to your assumption we also distinguish if you mean we cannot believe this Poedobaptisme by any clear place of Scripture namely in terminis terminantibus as they speak expresly we grant it but this is not enough for your purpose And if you mean it cannot be clearly believed because by consequence it cannot be proved or because it cannot be clearly beleeved since it is beleeved by consequence then we deny your assumption in both regards For whatsoever is necessarily inferred from Scripture is binding in the vertue of the principle and therefore clearly we may beleeve it Now the institution of Baptisme in general by Christ the substitution of it to circumcision since there is the same Covenant in substance to both Testaments is a sufficient Principle to infer the necessity of Baptisme of Infants besides what may be supposed by baptizing whole Families And therefore this is none of those things which are not grounded in Scripture and therefore no Object of the Church Tradition And therefore Saint Austins Testimony will come to no more then this that though they had nothing for certain alledged out of the Canonical Books in this point yet the truth of Scripture is kept when they do that which seemed good to the Catholique Church namely so far as the Catholique Church keepeth the Truth in clearing that which is not plain in Scripture Which Church the Scripture doth commend as he But is it cōmended for infallibility If not this Testimony and all your Testimonies and all your instances which you have of things not determined in Scripture but determined by the Church will doe you no good for you
must prove that they were and ought to be infallibly determined by the Church upon necessity of salvation because you would conclude your postulate of the necessity of an infallible Judge Now then if those things were not infallibly determined the instances thereof are of no use to you And you may consider that we may in things of practice which in their nature are of free Observation as being neither commanded or forbidden by the Scripture and should follow the Church therefore to bring it to an issue Either this Poedobaptisme was Infallibly followed by the Church or not if infallibly it was so by the moments of Paedobaptisme in Scripture although not perspicuous If not infallibly yet might they follow the Church and should in this Case because if it had been free to them to have done so or not in regard of the thing yet should they have gone in the way of the Church when there was nothing to the contrary much more should they conform in this which had that reason in the Analogy of Scripture and therefore this Testimony of the Father need not move us wheresoever we find it for I cannot find it by your direction Give me some better direction to find the following of the Tradition of the Church to be the most true and inviolable Rule of Truth reduplicatively namely upon its own account and in things necessary then I shall say more or yield He holdeth therefore you say the Tradition of the Church so infallible that it may be a ground of Faith Here are two things to be said First that he holdeth so of Tradition which by other Testimonies is to be proved Since Secondly he doth not hold it therefore of Tradition since these words of Saint Austin doe not draw after them the nature of Tradition in your sence which doth not depend upon the written Word as this doth for the reason of it And you believe Saint Paul taught him so in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2.15 Hold the Traditions which you have been taught whether by word or by our Epistle To this we answer premising the state of the Question whether Doctrine of Faith not depending upon the word written do oblige Faith equally to Scripture Now we say that these Traditions might respect Order and Ceremony or History and so comes not within compass of the Question in regard of the matter Secondly Though it will not please Estius upon the place yet nothing hinders but that it might be meant of the same matter which was first preached then written and then should hold it or them as first preached then written and this is a second answer in the place doth come into our question in respect of the matter for the Syriack renders it Mandats Commandements which do not signifie formally matters of Faith Thirdly The Thessalonians might be sure that what they had from him by word was such as they should believe equally to what was written but so cannot we be of your Doctrines of Faith which you say are handed from Generation to Generation Make us as sure of them in regard of Divine Inspiration and communication to us then urge our Obedience equal And this will give you an account of Saint Chrysostome upon the place who meaneth no otherwise then that which they had from God by him whether in word or writing they should hold which they could beleeve we can not for such Traditions having nâ—t that certainty of them Read the whole of him upon that Text and also do not passe by the Observation of this modesty herein we may think it worthy of beleef namely the Tradition of the Church which whether he means it of things of Discipline and order wherein we deny not conformity to the Church we are not sure of but there come not up to our Question for they are not of Faith and do not equally oblige And hitherto now you have gone about to assure Christians of a necessity of an infallible Judge now in your 17. Paragr you will assume that the Catholique Church is the Judge Then the Roman to be the Catholique prudently The text you name for the Catholick Church is that of Saint Matthew in his 16 Chap. the 18 Verse I say unto thee thou art Peter that is to S. Peter by name thou art Peter that is thou art a rock and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it c. And now surely you are at your strong hold which you think cannot be undermined or stormed true if your application of it were as sure as it But we are not careful to answer you in this assault First we deny your interpretation of the name of Peter you interpret the Greek that is a rock it is denied the Greek word doth not ordinarily and not here signifie a rock And if you will not believe me take this argument Cephas signifieth a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Petrus signifieth as Cephas therefore a stone Both propositions you have proved as you may see in S. John 1.42 43. as in the Syriack Thou shalt be called Cephas that is a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Greek which is interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stone And because Cephas is known in Siriack to signifie a stone therefore the Syriack doth not add these words which is interpreted and that Petrus signifieth as Cephas you have there for Cephas is interpreted by Petrus therefore your interpretation is not right Secondly If you say as you did before that the Hebrew was the Original of Saint Matthew's Gospel then are you not nearly obliged to the Syriack which is but a dialect thereof nay likely the very Dialect of Hebrew wherein it was first written if not in Greek and then not onely can you not interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rock but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither and then you cannot render the following words as you do And upon this Rock c. For the words in the Syriack are letter for letter the same both the name of the Apostles and the word which you render a Rock are the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both and therefore if you will stand to the Syriack it will come to this Thou art a stone and upon this stone will I build my Church And this will have fair Correspondence with that of Saint Paul in the same Metaphor Ephes 2.20 Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone So that the priviledge of Saint Peter here was onely this to lay as it were the first stone in this Foundation Nay thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament more then once signifieth a stone Rom. 9. last it is synonymically joyned there with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned also to the same Metaphor in that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this must signifie a
stone of offence for whoever stumbled at a Rock and therefore a scandal in the Church is by Aquinas defined by that which gives to others an occasion of falling So also in the very same manner are they put together by Saint Peter himself in his 1. Ep. 2. Verse 8. And we have reason to think that Saint Peter did understand the sense of Christs words to him and the reason of his name And thus for your Interpretation of this Text. As for the application of it we say first whereas you referre this to the Person of Saint Peter you may know that you differ from the Ancients who did refer it to the Confession of Saint Peter and not to his act of his Confession as his but as to the Object which was confessed which your Isidor Clarius may be thought to aim at when he Expounds super hanc Petram super hanc fidel soliditatem For Piscator notes well that this rock cannot be meant of Saint Peter because S. Peter is one of the believers which were built upon this rock And therefore one hath a conceit that Christ spake this rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pointing at himself as where he sayes destroy this Temple pointting at his body and so the copulative may be understood by way of Ebraisme and upon this rock but upon this rock Secondly as Saint Peter spake here for the rest of the Apostles where that which is granted is common to him with the rest of the Apostles as that which follows and I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven unlesse you can Evince it that that which is here promised or given to Saint Peter â— really different from that which is given to all the Apostles in the 20. of Saint Iohn the 22 23. verse and then shall you do more then you Hart in his Colloquie with Rainolds There is the same power and authority under the same Metaphor For what difference will you make betwixt binding and retaining and loosing or remitting so then let me ask you this question was the primacy of authority given to Saint Peter here at that time or after the Resurrection given here promised If given here then after this priviledges of Infallibility Saint Peter denyed his Master therefore somebody of yours and Bellarmin as I remember wittily imagineth that this authority was given to Saint Peter after his Resurection that so the successors of Saint Peter might not have the possibility of denying Christ entailed upon them If promised there given then where will you finde any Text more symbolical then that of the 20. of Saint John forenamed and that was given to the Apostles communiter Therefore if I will give respects the future and after the Resurrection of Christ as Isidor Glorius doth note then confesse it to be accomplished here or name any Text which hath better allusion thereunto And if the Superiority of Saint Peter was neither given nor promised here where then and why is this Text made to bear false witnesse by you for you Thirdly This Superiority of Saint Peter in jurisdiction as to be Prince of the Apostles as your men speak is flatly contrary to our Saviours own Order in the 20. of Saint Matthew the 26. verse for when James and John the sons of Zebedee were petitioned for by their mother for preheminency Our Saviour said Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them those that are great exercise authority upon them but it shall not be so amongst you Then here is the Controversie determined by our Saviour in Scripture St. Peter then was not to have any authority over the rest Not that from hence can be argued that there should be no one Superior to Presbyters as Sectaries would urge it but none of all the Apostles to be superior to have dominion to exercise authority over the other of the Apostles Here is a plain Text for the paritie of the Apostles which destroyes the foundation of the Roman Church which now you speak for Fourthly Put case Saint Peter had been constituted Prince of the Apostles and of the Church consequently yet have you another infinite labour to make good the succession of these priviledges to the Bishop of Rome by Divine Right Why not rather to Antioch and Jerusalem since also by a Divine Faith we cannot be ascertained that Saint Peter was ever at Rome We do not deny it but yet by you it is not made out to be an object of Divine Faith that he was there And to name no other prejudices against you in this you are put to very hard shifts for the prâ—â—â—hereof when you are compelled to interpret Babylon â—â— the 1 Ep. 5. c. 13. v. of St. Peter to be Rome Certainly had your men any other Text for it they would not have given us this occasion and example to interpret Babylon in another place to be Rome And yet also Isidor is somewhat tender in this Exposition it is not very likely saith he that it should be understood of that Babylon of the Assyrians or that in Aegypt but it is admodum credibile very credible that it is meant of Rome And Estius upon the place cites the first Author for this Interpretation of it to be Rome to be the same who was the Father of the Milinary Opinion namely Papias But fifthly The former Text of Saint Matthew is not to be meant of any Church of one Denomination and if so it had been meant of one not of Rome For then the promise had not been made good of not falling into damnable errours for so the gates of Hell should prevail against it The gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church of Rome Head and Members as you may see more at large in the Discourse of Raynolds with Hart. What say you to Liberius his subscribing to the censure of Athanasius and did not he subscribe to the errour then which Athanasius withstood And were not the Members included in the Head And ought not they to do so as he under peril of damnation But sixthly whereas you say that by Christ the Church is secured from any damnable errour we have enough against you by this intimation if you mean it distinctively as methinks you do For you insinuate here that Christ doth not intend her exemption from all errour for then you are in greater danger of not being the Church unto which that Favour is granted but he doth here free it from damnable errour because else the gates of Hell should prevail against it So then again it is not necessary to salvation to be free from all errour Well then upon these two concessions that the Church of Christ may be obnoxious to errour though not damnaâ—â—â— because again every errour doth not damne we excluâ—â— the infallibility of the Church for it may erre it seems and also we exclude the necessity of such an infallibility for we may be saved notwithstanding some errours and what
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
Catholick authority doth commend both which may be done without infallibility For the commendation doth not ingage the judgement in assent necessary but the authority may ingage the mind to have a good opinion thereof and so may move dispositively to Faith Fifthly Perpende it well that it is said by St. Austin that he was moved by the Catholick Church its authority and that the Catholick authority doth commend both not the Roman authority which now is included or to be included And therefore if you could prove that Saint Austin intended as much as you would have and also that his authority were sufficient to carry the cause for the Catholick Church Yet you can have from hence no more then your part comes to of a particular Catholick Church if indeed you were such And therefore have you upon your shoulders such a labour as all discerning Catholicks would detract or retract namely to make good that whatsoever is said of the Catholick Church in the respects of it should be singularly appropriated to the Roman But of this in your 27 number Whereas you seem to vaunt upon your paraphrase could he more clearly say that if once in one single lye he should find the Churches authority to be fallible he should then have left unto him no infallible ground at all upon which he were to beleeve Scripture So you First I deny your consequence this doth not follow from what you have urged that Saint Austin drives this discourse that if he should find them in a lye he could have no infallible ground to beleeve Scripture It follows well that he could not beleeve Scripture by their authority because they had led unto him But though they did not lie to him they might be fallible for they might purpose that which they thought to be true for errour and therefore for their not lying can we not infer their infallibility And for ought I see he doth not here any way give us to understand that he did think they could not lye to him and therefore he could not conceive them upon this impossibility to be infallible As for that which you think an Argument against me that he could not speak any thing in heat or by slip which he so much inculcates This is nothing effectual for how often do we with fervour endevor to maintain that which once hath by incogitance or passion gone from us Yea it may seem more likely because he doth so much inculcate it because we are so eager to cover our imperfections and especially when we are like to make good use of it against an adversary Secondly what doth he inculcate that which you would have But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they say this is under question and therefore his inculcation is nothing to you if he speak it assertively until you fortifie your supposition But one Marginal note of yours more at the sign of the crosse I find and that is this Had he said that he beleeved this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it by which he discovered it to be Canonical then the Manichaeans might as easily have said that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical So you This is no way moving much lesse cogent For first it proceeds from a Negative which in the kind of it unless from Scripture which is the adaequate rule is of no validity Because he did not say so therefore he did not hold so No connexion Secondly by the same reason I may say he did not hold the authority of the Church to be infallible for then he would have told them so plainly he would have made an end of the dispute without any need of using Scripture Thirdly they were not prepared for this Theological Argument because they did not own the Church And now all things being duely considered I think you have no cause to say that I have not sincerely and fully answered what you have had to say for your self out of that supreme Testimonie of Saint Austin And if you compare that chapter with the chapter you mention in the same Number below namely the fifth against the Epistle of the Manichee with the 14. De util Cred. against the Manichees too you will not or cannot heartily dislike my Answers and therefore need I not distinctly to answer this last since here also he doth not compare the authoritie of the Church with the authoritie of the Scripture which is our main question but he compares with the authoritie of those few those turbulent those new men as he speaks who were not like to bring forth any thing which any without doubt might not think not worthy of authoritie the authoritie of the Church as to the beleeving of Christ where also he said that he was moved by the authoritie of the Catholicks Quorum autoritate commotus Christum aliquid utile praecepisse jam credidi Whereby you shall if you will see the reasonablenesse of the former criticism because here he said jam credidi so that it must refer to to him as a Manichee And therefore can you not with Saint Austin beleeve the whole Scripture to be the Word of God from the beginning to the ending as upon infallible authority of the Church because if he did yet cannot you do it which is not to be done and if it be to be done because he did it then it is not to be done because he did it not And I hope those strange stories and those several points which you speak to be in Scripture may be more like to be beleeved upon the authority of the Scripture then upon the authority of the Church since the Church hath no authority but from Scripture not as a Church And therefore if you have no other infallible ground for prayers to Saints and prayer for the dead in your sense and other like points then you have proved he went upon as towards the believing of Scripture you have none Nay you have not so good authority for those and such like points as he had for the belief of the Scripture for besides the difference of the matter he had Catholick authority for his belief though the authority was not Infallible but you have not Catholick authority for your points though fallible But I observe your wisdome You would justifie your points here by Infallibility which you think may be more likely then to justifie your Infallibility by your points of difference Therefore your conditional postulate might have been spared untill the condition be proved If Saint Austin had done so as you suppose then you or your Church would have been more excused from singularity because you had followed him As for you you need not fear singularity You provide against that in your opinion or your Masters for you for you must follow the Church without examination of what they say Their word must be taken but yet your Church may be accused
the not being a rule upon this account the traditions and the testimonies of the Fathers cannot be a rule because they have been abused Thirdly We do not intend the use of the judgement of discretion to rest in that upon an interpretation nor do we oppose it to the authoritie of the Church but we say this must be satisfied in Articles and matters of Faith notwithstanding the decisions of the Church by consonance thereof to Scripture otherwise it cannot give the assent of Divine Faith Every one must be perswaded in his own mind although he doth not make his own sense This private judgement should neither be blind nor heady it respects authoritie but joyneth only with appearance of the Word of God That which you say to the seventh answer was examined before That which you say to the eighth answer will not serve to save you from differing from your self which indeed if it were in way of retractation would not be reprehensible as Saint Austin speaks in the Preface of his Retractations Neque enim nisi imprudens c. for neither will any but an unwise man reprehend me because I reprehend my errours But if you have a mind to see the difference betwixt you and you you may thus Before you said that the ground of believing is the authoritie of the Church since you have said in your second paper that it is the authoritie of God revealing If there be no difference why do you not keep your terms as a Disputant should do But you say your reply is exceeding easie the ground of our faith is God revealing and God revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word So you Now then if you make the authoritie of God revealing to be the ground and cause of faith then it is not the authoritie of the Church because although God doth reveal by his Church yet is not the authoritie of the Church the ground of faith but Gods authoritie for the Church is but as a Messenger or Ambassadour which we do not believe for himself but for his Letters of Credence from his Master and so is it the authoritie of Gods revealing which is the ground of faith And this is made out by that you say to compound your variance You say the ground of our faith is God revealing and Gods revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word then the authoritie is his whereby we believe and not the authoritie of the Church which is but Miniâ—terial And by your own argument are you undone for if the Church be the ground of faith and not the Scripture because by the Church we believe such and such books to be Canonical as you have said before and also here below in this Reply to my eight Answer then also the Authoritie of the Church is not the ground of faith because we must first believe Gods authoritie revealing it to his Church before we believe the Church But also to take notice of that Argument of yours here it is false For we must first believe the authoritie of Scripture before we can believe any authoritie of the Church For the Church as such hath all from Scripture as I have shewed And therefore by your own argument are you undone again for if that be the ground of faith which is first then the Scripture not the Church and therefore the Church may be disputed not the Scripture which we do understand by way of Intelligence through a supernatural light and cannot demonstrate as we may the Church by principles of Scripture Again you seem to differ from your self because now you hold that the Church is the ground of our faith in all particulars causally because by it we believe the Scripture but before the faith of a Catholick which you mean generally must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it so your first paper in terminis terminantibus But now when we believe the Scripture by the Church we may believe that which is plain in it by it self because it saith it not because the Church saith it Do not you now somewhat yield not to me but to truth Truth will be too hard for any one that hath not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost and yet also will it be too hard for him though he denies it Consider then what you have said and what you think and judge how the Masters of your Church will answer it at Gods Tribunal for that everlasting cheating of simple souls with the mysterie of implicite faith And that also which you so much repeat that we must receive Canonical books by the Infallible authoritie of the Church is not yet grown beyond the height of a postulate It hath been often denied you upon necessitie and it did not obtain it seems universally in the practice of the Church or else some of your Apocriphal books were not accounted Canonical for Cyrill of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechese where he speaks in part of the Scriptures he accounts not in the number the Maccabees you spoke of nor some others Yea for the reception of books Canonical Saint Jerome gives another reason of embracing but four Gospels in his Preface upon the Comment upon Saint Matthew not because the Church owned no more as you would have Saint Austin to be understood but he doth prove that there are but four by compare of that of Ezekiel with that of the Apocalypse about the foure beasts which doe represent as he interprets their meaning the four Evangelists You go on and say God revealing is alwayes the formall Object of faith Before every thing was to be believed as proposed by the Church because she proposeth it so that the formal Object of things to be believed was as proposed by the Church under that consideration But sometimes God revealeth his mind by Scripture sometimes by the Church as he did two thousand years and more before the Scriptures were written So you Well then now he reveales himself by Scripture contradistinctly to the Church as well as by the Church contradistinctly to Scripture which you put in one behalf of your unwritten word So then we may believe him immediately by Scripture but whether we can believe him immediately by tradition without Scripture wants conviction Neither doe you exhibit a reason of this Opinion by that which follows that for two thousand years and upwards before the Scriptures were written he revealed himself by the Church This as before is not enough to sustain traditional Doctrine because the Scripture in the substance of it was before it was written but you cannot evince that the word not written is as certain to us as the word before it was written was unto them And the Reason may be taken from
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
proposed the question they put down the reasons which seem to make against the truth This was done to my hand in your first paper Then they set down the Truth and the Reasons of it and this Saint Thomas in his Quaestionibus fasiùs disputatis doth sometimes very largely and this I did to your hand in my last paper Lastly they solve the former Objections against truth by reference to such Reasons as they in their Proofs did shew the truth to be grounded upon And this in my conclusion I shewed my self to have performed or if any little thing were wanting I did supply it Wherefore though I had not your consent to proceed thus with your paper yet I content my self with having the consent of the best Schoolmen My intention in rejoyning by a Treatise was to have this most important matter distinctly orderly and fully put down And by having done so I find this great commoditie that your answer becomes more Methodical and my Reply to your Answer more clear and perspicuous And the Reader seeth still how orderly the combat is The Second CHAPTER The necessitie of a Judge in all Controversies to whom all are bound to submit 1. IN the beginning of your Answer Of my first Number to what I said concerning this point you go about to perswade us that we Recusants who upon this account are liable to loose two parts of our Estates and what else you are or shall be pleased to take from us be it goods liberty or life that we I say are most likely to take up our Religion by prejudice Doubtless you must think us first to be very noble contemners of the world whose greatest commodities do not hinder us from looking upon even with prejudice a Religion so manifestly prejudicial to us and so your own Tertullians saying fitly checks you for being one who cannot see so manifest Verities as be in our Religion you perswade your self to see certain Falsities which so manifestly be not in it let us come to the matter Of my second Number 2. God having made man to a supernatural end to be attained by supernatural means among which the first is true faith it is clear that he must according to his merciful Providence provide us some way to this faith so easie that all if they pleased might be brought to the knowledge of it And because the far greater part of men were ignorant it beseemed his goodnesse who is the Lover of Souls to provide us such a way as these ignorant men should not be able unless by wilfully carelesness to erre by it according to that of the Prophet Esay 35. promising at the coming of the Messias A Path and a way which shall be so direct to us that fools cannot erre by it To elude this Text You say sure may we be that the Letter doth respect the Jewish Church after their Redemption from Captivity I answer if this be sure then sure it is That God directeth the Jewish Church by a way so direct that fools could not erre by it And if he did this to the Jewish Church there can be no good reason why he should be less careful to direct the ignorant of the Church of Christ Whence you see I had no reason to have feared this Interpretation Yet I think it is sure that this is not the true interpretation for when did the blind see deaf hear when did then God himself come and save us And if you will have our Saviour himself to be this way as he said I am the Truth and the Way this self same Saviour said I who am this way am with you untill the consummation of the world to wit directing my Church the right way to salvation of which direction the Church hath no lesse need now then then And as we could not securely have put a limitation to these words of Joel if Saint Peter had not secured us of the true sense so cannot you here limit these words not having the like warrant for it And as for the first part of Miracles it is manifest by our Saviour his own words Those who believed in him should do greater then he had done If then this Text was Verified after our Saviours time you cannot say it is onely spoke of his time and that he did take away a way so necessary for us His guifts being without Repentance And it is strange that you thinking this guift Litterally conferred to the Jewish Church should with the same breath plead so hard that it is a guift which should not in full dimension be alwayes extended to the Church I cannot believe that you trust your other argument If this way be promised to the Church Ergo the Church is not this way Suppose God had promised the Kingdome of France a Monarchy Ergo the Kingdome of France say you is not this Monarchy The true consequence is Ergo The Kingdome of France is this Monarchie The Church is this way which God promised it should be And it is so by the sure guidance of him who is the way and is with his Church ruling it until the continuation of the world And so Christ is Regula regulans and the Church Regula regulata But being ruled by him there is not the least danger that it will swerve from the VVord of God and you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedidience And still I must mind you that I speak of the Universal Church represented in a General Council confirmed by the Supreme Pastor This Church guiding by her infallible doctrine is this way the Church Diffusive guided now by this Doctrine was promised this Direct way such a way we were promised a way so direct represented that fools cannot erre by it The Scripture as some may conceive for you dare not defend it is not this way for we see with our eyes not onely fools but also most learned men to erre grosly and to follow most contradictory opinions whilest they professe from their hearts to follow Scripture as neer as they can the Scripture therefore is not this way yet such a way we must find to make Gods promise good Nothing then with any probabilitie can be said to be this way but the Visible Church of Christ For the Church Invisible as such is no way according to your Confession The visible Church then is this Judge by submission to her judgement we in all things are secured Of my third Number 3. Whence what you say against my third Number is easily answered For all Religions agreeing that there must be one Judge of all Controversies which either be or may be in Religion they must all give infallibility to their Judge as you your selves do affirming Gods written Word to have plainly set down all things necessary to salvation so that no necessary controversie can spring up but this Judge as you say doth decide it which how false it is I shall fully shew chap. 3. All other
hath sufficiently provided for the salvation of man in regard of means of Knowledge without an infallible Judge on Earth because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture And in another place you say what is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary Of this your opinion no proof was given by you untill you come unto this present place Here then I will begin to discusse this Question And first I will take leave to state this Question a little more fully and distinctly 2. Your Assertion then is That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture In this Assertion there be 2 things which need a full and distinct declaration The first is to declare these words Necessary to salvation The second to declare those other words Plainly set down in Scripture And first concerning those words Necessary to salvation they must of necessity be understood so that all things are plainly set down in Scripture which are necessary First to the Universal Church as it is a communitie Secondly all things which are necessary to all States and Degrees that must needs be in this community Thirdly all things necessary to every single person bound to be of this community As for the first the Church being intended to be a community diffus'd through the whole World and intended for a Perpetuity must by infallible authority be plainly told in what manner she is in all times and places to be provided of lawful Pastors and that with perpetual Succession and what power these Pastors have either in respect of one another or in respect to their particular flocks and what Lawes they may make either single in regard of their flocks or assembled in regard of the whole community and how many to this effect must be assembled who must call their assembly who perside in it when it is to be accounted lawful when an unlawful assembly Whether the Precepts of this assembly oblige under pain of damnation to the keeping for Example of any Feast as Christmasse Ascension or any Fast as the Fast of Lent of Christmasse Eve and to this community it is also necessary to know what publick service may and ought to be imposed upon all and when all are bound to be present at it What Sacraments are to be administred by whom when the people are bound to use them and how often and in what manner and form they must be Administred All these things are necessary to the Chuch as a community and yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians all undecidable by Scripture Some of you contend according to Scripture that there must be Bishops with such and such Power and Authority and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons and without these no true Sacraments things so necessary to the salvation of all men Others answer in the words of your own doctrine What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary But it is not plainly delivered in Scripture that the Church should be governed by Bishops with such and such authoritie That Priests should be Ordained with such and such a Form that none but Priests should have Power to blesse the Bread administer the Sacraments That this Bread must be Wheat-bread or Barley or Oaten or Pease-bread Therefore all these things are signified not to be necessary The same Argument might be made of other such like Controversies which certainly be no lesse necessary then the former to be decided Though according to their Doctrine none of them should be necessary Or if necessary they should be decidable by plain Scripture and then your Doctours could not jarre about them as they doe Some of you will have no words at all necessary to the Administration of Baptisme some will have such kinde of words and others words very different from them in substance Secondly to speak now of such things as are of strict necessity to certain men of certain states and degrees in the Church Your Bishops must know how to ordain Priests and with what form of words or actions Where shall they find this plainly set down in Scripture They must also know whether they can lawfully permit women to baptize at all or baptize in necessitie onely and not out of it Whether they may permit women or lay-men to blesse the bread and distribute the Sacrament seeing that Christ said Do this all not plainly expressing how far these his words extended themselves Priests must know what kind of Ordination is necessary for their Function what commssion is necessary for their lawful Missions and whether it can be granted by Lay-men or no as also their power to make and administer Sacraments and yet none of these are plainly set down in Scripture and endlesse controversies there be about them 4. Thirdly divers of the former things not set down plainly in Scripture are necessary to be known by all men all being obliged to serve God in a true Church having a lawful succession of true Pastors truly ordain'd themselves and truly ordaining their Priests who must be known to Administer true Sacraments in their true matter and form preaching also the Word of God by lawful Mission It is necessary to the salvation of every man to believe and doe somethings and not to do some other things not plainly set down in Scripture Every one is to believe some things distinctly Now which these things be or how many Scriptures expresse not Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday Every one is bound not to have two wives at one time not also to marry within such and such a degree of consanguinity Where be all these things plainly set down in Scripture Of divers other things we shall yet say more Yet even hence appeareth how many endlesse difficulties these words of yours Necessarie to salvation bring with them 5. Other endlesse difficulties be superadded by those other words Plainly set down in Scripture First to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sence of it I must first know such a book to be the true and undoubted Word of God which as I shall shew Numb 20. cannot be known by Scripture at least by those who can truly swear that they are no more able by the reading of the book of Numbers for example to discover in it any Divine Light shewing it to be true Scripture more then they discover in the books of Judith or Toby shewing them to be true Scripture Secondly they must infallibly shew that this very Verse in which I find this point is not thrust in among other true parts of Scripture or some word changing the sense either thrust in or left out in this Verse and this they must know infallibly Thirdly after all this they must yet further know and that infallibly
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
a most right Rule yet it is very commonly so crookedly applied that we stand in need of a better security of the interpretation of it in which the very carnel of the Letter doth consist then we have of the interpretation finally stood unto made by the private judgement of our own discretion I know your Answer is that it is accidental to this Rule to be misapplied and that this cannot infringe the authoritie of Scripture It doth not indeed infringe the Authority of Scripture used as God would have it used with due submission to the publick interpretation of his Church Otherwise not for want of infallibilitie in Scripture but by the abundance of fallibility in our private judgements of discretion it followeth that we poor creatures shall be subject to be misled most pittifully without God doth provide us of an infallible interpreter Neither is this to speak more irreverently of Scriptute then Saint Peter spoke of Saint Pauls Epistles Nothing more clear then that the words of Scripture are capable of several senses and when the senses be several it must needs depend upon the inward and most secret intention of God to have had an intention to use these words to such or such a sense onely or to both if he pleased How shall we infallibly know Gods secret intention but by an interpreter having infallible assistance from the same Holy Spirit who assisted those who did write the Scripture Wherefore we cannot but wonder to see how much scope you give to such poor creatures as ignorant men are by thrusting the whole Bible into every mans hands and investing him with so ample a faculty to interpret it without any interior submission to the Church although the interior judgement be the very seat of damnable error or saving Truth that he may follow in his judgement what he shall sincerely judge to be truest In so much that he may in his own interpretation stand out in his judgement against the interpretations of whole General Councils And yet this very self same man is wisely by you sent to the Minister And any Minister of the Gospel say you but I must not say Any General Council is able competently through the Scripture to direct the People to their happiness And the Scripture was inspired to this purpose Happy Ministers Happy people led so securely Only unhappy misled people are we who had rather say The Scripture was inspired that through it General Councils might securely direct the people to their happiness then say with my good adversary any Minister of the Gospel is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people to their happinesse And the Scriptures were inspired to this purpose Doe but allow me this to the Church that it can competently through the Scripture direct the people their happiness and we will not contend with you whether this competent direction to happiness shall be called an infallible direction or no though we think it most certain that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happiness Now because by the way I did say our Church could not erre in damnative errors you conceive me to grant that it may erre in points not damnative No Sir when I said these words I did only take and subsume that which you your selves most commonly grant unto the Church that it cannot erre in damnative matters This alone giveth her a main advantage over any Minister or any private Interpreter This alone giveth a demonstrable reason why we should not follow our own interpretations which may be damnative as those interpretations were which some men made of Saint Pauls Epistles to their own perdition as Saint Peter saith And surely such Interpretations are then likely to be damnative when they are flatly contrary to the Interpretations of the Church What Commission the Church had for her infallibilitie I shall shew in due place And to shew it more fully I will press again your Text and give a second answer unto it by answering the words following which are All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and it is profitable for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction so your Bible reads for instruction in righteousnesse Is it given by Inspiration yes What prove you from hence but that you and yours have a notable Talent in not concluding contradictorily You should conclude thus All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God But all Doctrine given by Inspiration from God containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation Therefore all Scripture contains plainly all things necessary to salvation it doth this taking the word Necessary and the word plainly as I have shewed they must be taken in the beginning of this chapter Well but you will hit of it by and by after three or foure Consequences of no Consequence For you goe thus on Is not all Scripture profitable for Doctrine Yes in a high Degree it teacheth most eminent Vertues and among other Vertues it teacheth most wholesome submission and obedience to the Church and by her all things necessary for salvation And thus the Scripture by her self alone is very profitable But Sir I expected a Contradictory Conclusion Deduce me from these words this Consequence Ergo God intended by the Scriptures alone to teach us with infallibilitie all things necessarie to salvation or all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture still understanding these words as I in the beginning shewed they must be understood Go on Is it not profitable for reproof Yes Sir But where is the contradictorie Conclusion I expected Is it not profitable for correction Yes But I want still this Contradictorie Conclusion Is it not profitable for instruction in Righteousnesse Yes And now all your Powder is spent and you have not hit the marke for I have not yet the Contradictorie Conclusion I so long expected Hear now a true Contradictorie Conclusion against your selfe out of this Text. That which in this Text is said onely to be profitable for these ends is not thereby said to be sufficient even to these ends and yet much lesse sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to Salvation by it self alone But the Scripture in this Text is only said to be profitable to these ends here expressed Therefore it is not hereby said to be sufficient and that by it self alone even to these ends and much less by it self alone sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation plainly setting down what is to be held in all things necessary to Salvation Again for a third answer You cannot say St. Paul spoke these words of the New Testament which for some fourty years after Saint Paul spoke these words was not finished Therefore Saint Paul in this Text doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture whence he is most weakly cited to prove from hence that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation Again when this is proved it is manifest that part of the
away from the words of this Prophesie God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life Luther took all the book away you hold it all Scripture and yet him a Saint You goe on and adde that the Apocalyps and other Books also have been doubted of But do you not mark the more doubt there hath been of them the more evident it is that they most ungroundedly be affirmed by you to carry their own light by which they may be seen as we see the Sun by his own light Again being you neither agree with us in the Canon of the Scripture nor with your own Brethren what reason have you to obtrude a Canon of your own coyning to us for Judge of all Controversies you not agreeing nor knowing how many books make up the true Canon and all agreeing that divers books of the true Canon be quite lost Where shall we find this our Judge Among us after the Church Delaration was notified concerning the receiving of any book for Canonical you will never find it doubted of by any true Catholiques You are mistaken if you think Saint Jerom held the Macchabees not to be Canonical after the definition of the Council of Carthage It was before that Council that he writ what he writ Concerning the rest you adde out of Saint Austin I would say more if you esteemed the Fathers more what you add after that hath already been answered 〈◊〉 14th 〈◊〉 50. In my 14. Num. for a further proof that the Scripture alone cannot decide all controversies I did and do still insist upon this argument that almost all Controversies do arise about the true sense of such or such a Text in Scripture The sense is the kernel the life the Soul of the text misse in this misse in all And yet about this sense greatest wits vastly differ in many points necessary to Salvation and consequently many misse the true sense to their eternall damnation This book of the Scripture by it self alone could never yet end these differences Therefore if God had left us no other means to end our differences but this Book about the true understanding of which all our differences arise he should have no better provided for our unity even in points necessary to Salvation then that Law-maker who should leave his Common-wealth a Book of Laws to end all their Controversies in Law about the meaning of which Book he knew all the cheifest Controversies would still arise This is indeed a repetition of what I said but it is a repetition of what you have not yet answered For against your first answer it is apparent that there is not only a necessity of a judge different from Scripture to declare unto us which books be the true and uncorrupted word of God but there is also a main necessity of such a judge to know the undoubted meaning of Gods undoubted Word about which there be far more controversies in points necessary to Salvation And though in your second answer you tell us that all points necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture yet I have plainly proved the contrary Chap. 3 Num. 200. And my discourse Contrary to your 3. Answer is affectual for in points necessary to Salvation to be believed with divine faith we must have an infallible authority to rely on for that faith which relieth upon a fallible authority cannot be an infallible assent And again if we have not full security of this infallible authority we cannot assent unto it with an assent infallible to which we being obliged by God God also must have furnished us of full security to know this authority to be infallible as I have shewed him to do And yet again that this infallible authority so well secured is invested in the Church appeareth sufficiently by this that the Scriptures not assisting us in the infallible knowledge of their own true sense in points necessary to be believed with infallible faith we must be assisted to this infallible knowledge by som other infallible means for fallible will not do the deed No other infallible means can with any shadow of probability be said given unto us but the infallible authority of the Church Therefore her authority must be infallible as shall at large be proved in the next Chapter and then in the next after that I will shew that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman 51. Again I said that if Christ had intended the Book of Scriptures for the judge of all Controversies the knowledge of this point being so primely necessary must needs be according to your principles evidently set down in Scripture in w◠all points necessary to salvation are as you say evidently set down You pretend here this point to be clear in Scripture but I have largely shewed the contrary and answered your objection And I retort it thus that if God would have us in all controversies guided by the Scripture only he would clearly have said so in these Scripture yea he would have told us the true undoubted Canon of Scripture This is now unknown to you And we are sure diverse parts of this Canon are lost what Scripture tels us we must be judged by only part of Scripture I pray answer this Of my 14th Number 52. Moreover I added that if God would have given us a Book for our Judge he would never have given us for our Judge such a Book as the Scripture is which very often speaketh obscurely sometime so prophetically that most would think it spoke of the present time when it speaketh of the time to come that it speaks of one person for example of David when it speaketh of another for example of Christ and much more I added to this effect that I might be rightly understood when I said that God would never have given us such a book for our Judge My adversarie to avoid this Argument so mangleth the sense that he may make my words sound of a blasphemous disrespect by reporting them as if I should have said If God had intended Scripture for our Judge he would not have given us such a Book as Scriture Which words taken without those particles for our Iudge seem to sound such an imperfect book as Scripture but taken with those particles which purposely were added to make the sense of the writer appear the sense can offend no man capable of sense For what man of understanding would affectionately crie out of disrespect if not of blasphemy against Scripture if he should hear one say if God had intended still the Scripture for sole Judge in all Law Controversies he would never have given us such a Book as the Scripture is for our Iudge Would any sober man let fall such a censure upon such an occasion Is it not manifest that the Scripture may be a Book as perfect as can be for the intent for which God made it and yet not be fit to decide all Controversies by
it self alone it never being intended for that end It is sufficient that this Book provides an infallible means to judge them by sending us to the Church for our Judge They truly disgrace the Scripture who will first make men believe that all necessary Controversies are plainly decided by Scripture alone and that God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them and then when it comes to the trial are not able to shew any Text of Scripture deciding many and most important Controversies for this is in effect to say God performed very unsufficiently what he intended to do by Scripture If what I said gave you any advantage shew it by disproving what I said 53. First you ask how these words are put together so Prophetically that most would think that the Scripture speaketh of the time present when it speaketh of the time to come I answer that it was fit the old Testament should be Prophetical and I intended nothing lesse then to blame Scripture And yet I say that when the Scripture useth such words as signifie to us a veritie present as well as a veritie future we who have nothing but these words to direct us cannot tell infallibly whether God intended by them to speak onely of what was present or of what was to come And so Gods meaning in all these places is obscure unto us And if you can help us to any assured means of knowing infallibly the hidden sense of God utter'd in this māner you shall do more then any of your Doctors ever did Secondly whereas you think it little to the purpose of him who is to shew in how doubtful terms the Scriptures sometimes expresse themselves when they spoke so that you cannot tell whether David speaketh of himself or of Christ your judgement is very different from Candaris that wise judicious man who had charge of all the Treasure of the Queen of Aethiopia Acts 8.27 He read Isaias the clearest of all the Prophets concerning Christ and he read a place as clearly speaking of Christ as most places you can turn unto with all your skill and yet when Philip said to him Understandest thou what thou readest He who was so prudent and so sincere a searcher of the Truth answered How can I except some man should guide me And then he asked of his guide that of which he most doubted I pray thee of whom speaketh the Prophet this of himself or of some other man Had you been there you would have told him he had blamed Scripture as you tell me for the like cause Who doubteth but Prophets should speak prophetically And yet again who doubteth but that this their speaking so makes them to need a Guide an Interpreter 54. I do not think that among your own Clergie or Laitie you are as much esteemed as he who spoke as fully of this point as I did I mean Doctor Ieremy Taylor in his Discourse of the Liberty of Prophecying Sect. 3. where he proveth the uncertaintie of Arguments from Scripture By the many senses of Scripture when the Grammatical sense is found out for there is in very many Scriptures a double sense a Literal and a Spiritual and both these Senses are subdivided For the Literal sense is either Natural or Figurative and the Spiritual sometimes Allegorical sometimes Anagogical sometimes there are divers literal Senses in the same place so he Now it depends upon the secret intention of the Holy Ghost to have used these words in some one onely or two or more of these senses Is there no difficultie think you in finding out so great a secret and that infalliblie as we must do in points necessary to salvation And if you say the sense is alwaies cleared out of some Text or other in such points you say more then you can prove Take for an example these four words This is my Body you must say they are spoken in a Figurative sense and not in their Natural sense shew this in a Figurative sense to be infallibly the true sense by any other clear Text or else you shew not what you say Two hundred several Interpretations have been given of these four words Is this a sign that true sense is easily known and known infallibly Is not this about a point necessarie to salvation 55. To shew further the difficulty there was to know the undoubted meaning of Scripture even in precepts which being precepts are damnably broken I used this argument the Scripture useth the Imperative Mood as well when it counsels as when it commands What infallible means then have we to know what is recommended onely to us as a Counsel or Command as a precept to be kept under pain of damnation Instead of teaching me this means you say you cannot swallow this without chewing because I suppose that there are Counsels of perfection above things of Command whilest you chew this do not you see that your teeth bite Saint Paul who expresly supposeth with me that there be counsels of perfections above things of Command For 1 Cor. 7.25 he saith Concerning Virgins I have no Commandement of our Lord yet I give Counsel And Verse 38. He that giveth his daughter in marriage doth well but he that giveth her not in marriage doth better How doth this agree with your strange Divinity according to which we have done but our duty and what we are obliged to do under a damnable sin when we have done as much as we could Is this true Might not this man have given his daughter in marriage who doth not give her He might have done so and done well according to Saint Paul According to you he is bound to do all that he could do But he could have done better in not giving her to marriage therefore according to you he was bound not to give her under pain of damnation Here I must intreat you to mark the words of the Text you alledge against me Luke 17. So likewise when you have done all those things which are commanded you he saith not which are onely commended by way of Council say we are unprofitable servants we have done what we ought to do to wit by an expresse Precept obliging under damnation In one sense this man who hath not married his daughter may truly say I have done what I ought to do not out of strict Obligation binding under pain of Hell-fire for I might have done well in doing the contrarie but what I ought to do out of more perfect charitie To swallow this Apostolical Doctrine is far easier then to admit into ones mouth those words of yours The Commandements of God are given to us according to the tenour of our abilitie in Adam What evident Text teacheth this I am sure Saint Iohn saith Hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his Commandements He that saith I know him and keepeth not his Commandments is a lyar and the truth is not in him John 2. Therefore since Adams dayes God enabled
from erring damnable by it Now by what Logick do you inferre that because the Church is secured from all damnable errour therefore according to my doctrine shee is not secured from other errours All you build upon this consequence falls to the ground Going on I find you by the way quarelling with one of the Cardinall vertues even Prudence her self which you intimate then only to have place when Religion is chosen by interest I pray do you thinke in earnest that men cannot proceed prudently in the choise of their Religion Then you conclude that all the force my former argument hath it hath from Scripture Is not my argument the better for this against you who professe to believe Scripture to be Gods undoubted word independently of the authority of the Church because it is clearly manifested to you to be so by its light as the Sun by his light Is it not a convincing argument which is strengthened with an authoritie acknowledged so firme Against a Heathen untill I had proved Scripture to him I would not use this argument 4. Presently I find you again stumbling at the sense in which I took the word damnable as if I should allow the following of the Church in other errours No Sir you cannot follow her in other errors because she cannot go before you in any errour not in any damnable errour as your own selves teach no nor in any other errour as in this very next argument is proved if you mark the force of it 5. The force then of my next Argument is this God commandeth us to obey the Church and hear her in obeying her and hearing her we follow Gods Command But no kind of errour little or great can be incurred by following Gods Command therefore we can be lead into no kind of errour by following the Church Again you your selves say it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour though it be not a damnable errour Wherefore if I can prove that we are obliged to follow the Church I shall prove also that shee cannot guide us into any kind of errour This I prove by that text Matthew 18. verse 18. If he will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a publican or a Heathen Therefore meerly and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held and truely according to Gods judgment deserving to be held a publican or Heathen but all we are obliged not to deserve to be held by Gods judgement Publicans or heathens Therefore all are obliged to hear the Church being that meerly and purely for not hearing her they are to be held and deservingly held according to Gods judgment Publicans and Heathens as is also further insinuated in the next verse where it is said this sentence shall be ratified in Heaven Now if any man reply that we are to heare the Church so long as she swerveth not from Gods word my answer is that to swerve from Gods word is to erre but this text proveth she cannot erre Ergo it proveth that she cannot swerve from Gods word and indeed if she could the meerly not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to Gods judgement a Publican or Heathen But you tell me this text is to be understood not of matters of faith or unbelief but of matters of trespasse between brother and brother and refractoriness in the person And that it respects excommunication by censure in which also it may erre Neither is a man bound to believe the censure is just unless it appears to be so This last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine for the unanimous opinion of learned men is That a man is bound to hold his superiours censure or command to be just unless the contrary appears evident See your own Doctors Chillingworth P. 308 N. 108. Hooker P. 310 311. N. 110. Laud P. 226. And indeed you bring all to this that when all comes to all you are the last judge to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred and not to the sentence of the Church for you reserve to your selfe the last judgement of her sentence to see whether it be just or no in your own private opinion Sir if the contrary be not evident the Church who is Superior is to be followed and obeyed If the contrary be evident it is impossible such a superior as the Church is assembled in a general Council should not mark that evidence without we will call that evident or not evident which is for our present turn to call evident or not evident That which is truly evident will of it selfe appear to be so at least to the most judicious upright and best instructed Prelates of the Church And this is to be said according to human Reason although they had no infallible promise of a more then humane assistance from the Holy Ghost Moreover Sir let us if you please not passe so farre as the Censure but let us make a stay in the mere consideration only of the cause for which the censure is given that the cause is not hearing the Church for this and meerly for this only cause according to the text this man is according to Gods judgement deservedly to be held as a Publican or Heathen and therefore if for this act of not hearing the Church the censure cometh to be after wards pronounced against him that censure will be made good in Heaven as the next verse clearly saith Wherefore it is impossible that this Censure should be unjust if he truly be guilty of not hearing the Church It is true that a man may by false information or some such way be judged to be guilty of not hearing the Church when really he is not guilty and so there may be an errour in the mistake of the fact and thus Clave errante in mater of fact the sentence will not be ratified in Heaven But this is nothing to the purpose for still he who is truly guilty of not hearing the Church is for that only fact and meerly for that cause to be held deservedly according to Gods judgment as a publican or Heathen And so the Church cannot errour in denouncing Excommunication against such a person And hence you see how truely miserable such a person is and how it must needs be damnable unto him not to heare the Church which not to hear maketh a man to be held as a Publican or Heathen most deservedly and according to Gods owne judgement To hold himself not to deserve this punishment is to hold against Scripture You highly wrong Saint Athanasius to say he heard not the Church See my 9. Number These my Premisses being made good it followeth clearly that no man is secure in conscience who will not obey the Church And hence again it followeth that this Church cannot erre at least damnably for else a Man might in Conscience be bound to follow a damnable errour No she cannot erre in an
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
which collectively taken maketh your other ground of Christian belief to stand upon therefore Saint Pauls words were spoken of the Church as of such a pillar of truth and such a ground of truth as might then be securely relied upon in all matters of faith and confessedly as then the true believers had not the Scriptures sufficiently compleated to be their adaequate Rule of Faith Now after the writings of these Scripture recommending the Church as the pillar and ground of Truth this ground was so far from growing weaker that the confirmation of Scripture added new force to it I have now shewed you the Text in which without any subordination to Scripture as then not written the Church was by Saint Paul called the pillar and ground of Truth Now shew me your Text in which there must be a subordination and such a subordination as may make the Church not to be truly such a pillar and such a ground of Truth as all men may not now rely on it any longer as they did before all Scripture was written I call for your Text not for your reason against which other Reasons will soon be found And as for that saying of Saint Irenaus the Scripture is the pillar and ground of Truth it hath not upon his saying greater authority then the terming of the Church the pillar and ground of truth hath upon the authority of St. Paul My proofe as grounded on S. Paul is stronger then yours as grounded on St. Irenaeus yet I make not St. Irenaeus contrary to St. Paul what he saith of the Scripture I yeild for true yeild me what St. Paul saith that I may ground my faith upon the Church This I cannot do unless God speaketh by his Church If God speaketh by his Church I pray believe what he speaketh He telleth me by his Church that I am to admitt of the Scriptures as his undoubted word upon this his telling me so I ground that faith by which I believe the Scriptures so that I believe the Scriptures for the Church which faith of mine is as surely grounded as was the faith of the true believers who at that very time in which St. Paul did write these words did ground their faith in all points upon the Church as you cannot deny And thus in repect of us the Church is first believed independently of Scripture to which we are most prudently moved by such motives as I have specified and the Scripture in order to us cometh to be acknowledged as Gods word upon the authority of the Church there being no other assured stay speaking of the whole and undoubted Canon to know the true Scripture from false The Scripture is not the first Principle but upon supposition that every one among christians admit of it for Gods Word and so we argue out of it against one another But speaking of him who is to begin to be a christian as where all once began he cannot admit of Scripture as men admit of the first Principles of Sciences which of themselves appear so clearly true that all you can bring to prove their truth will appear lesse true then those Principles appear by themselves The Scripture is not the first Principle in this sense appearing evidently by its own light to be Gods Word as I have shewed at large And this answereth all you say until you come to make good your new interpretation of St. Pauls words an interpretation unheard of to all antiquity and to all men until this age Necessity now forced men to their shifts to put off Scripture when it made against them These words must now be necessarily referred to that which is said in the verse following concerning the mystery of the Incarnation and so though St. Paul did write this Epistle in Greek he must needs be said to have used here an Ebraisme And why must he needs be said to have done so here in this particular place because somtimes such Ebraisms be used in the new Testament Whether this reason wil justifie so new an interpretation of words even for a thousand and five hundered yeares applied to the Church never applied to the Mistery of the Incarnation shall be determined even by the Principles of one of your greatest Divines now living I mean Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Discourse of the Liberty of prophecying Sect. 4. An other great pretence for justifying new interpretations is the conference of places which you would use here by conferring this place to some few places in which such Ebraismes be used in Greek A thing of such indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sence alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine writers there is nothing which may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may amuse the most intelligent observours This he proveth by several examples and then he truly saith This is a fallacy a Posse ad esse It is possible a thing sometimes may be so therefore undoubtedly here it is so There be such Ebraismes some where therefore they must needs be here where for a thousand and five hundred yeares no man observed any such thing Most truly saith the same Doctor This is the great way of answering all the Arguments which can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend Sir you who make the Scripture judge of all Controversies should not of all men justifie such liberty of new interpretation as this your proceeding would bring in Or if you doe you will soon see and may already see it that your judge will be made to speak what each party pleaseth And thus will be unable to decide any thing But to proceed The Church truly being before the Canon was written the pillar and ground of truth in it self without any subordinatiō so that the believers looked no further then that God taught them such and such things by the Church I have from the text all I desire to prove that Gods assistance promised to the Church should reach as farre as infallibility Whether this infallibility be equal to that of the Apostles or no maketh not to the purpose so long as it is granted that our faith relying upon her authority doth rely as securely as that which relies upon the Pillar and ground of truth Here you come in with a parenthesis noting me for a French Catholique for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a council Sir you are no Schollar if you know not that all Roman Catholiques allow infallibility to the Pope defining with a council 24 But because I say also that God speaketh by his Church proposing infallibly his truth by her mouth you tell me that I hence may plainly see how the Roman tyranny drawes me necessarily into peril of blasphemy A deepe charge needing a strong proof And yet all your proof is because now there is no need of Scripture since God speakes as infallibly by his Church as
which is hard to affirme since we cannot see that there is any such necessity for such assistance And by those words such assistance Your last reply sheweth that you meane assistance extended to Infallibility Sir stand to Scripture and shew out of the Text that he promiseth to be with them securing them from all error in the first age and he promiseth not so much for the second or third age Against your reasons we have our reasons bring against my illimited text another text teaching clearly that my Text ought to be limited to a smaller assistance in other ages then was here promised for the first As for the necessity of the people which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infallibility it was greater in ages remoter from Christ you ask why then be our traditions now equally infallible to those of these times I answer that as it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles was crucified did rise again then it was presently after these things happened yet all these things be as infallibily true now as they were then and as infallilible so I say of Traditions which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty But to go on What if there be no such necessity of such assistance for other ages what Text have you to prove that God must needs give no more then is necessary and cannot promise more and give what he promiseth I know you will say this infallibility in ages after the Scripture was not necessary because the Scriptures alone would serve to decide all controversies Sir did not the Church alone serve to decide all Controversies before the Scripture was written Yes Why then was Scripture thought necessary by you even for this end for which the Church was well provided before Again the old Scripture did it not testifie as much as was necessary that Jesus Christ was the true Messias Yes To what end then was Saint John Baptist sent to testifie this To what end a voyce sent from Heaven to testifie this To what end so many Miracles wrought to testifie this To what end did Christ and his Apostles still further testifie this Mark here how false your judgement is in thinking God will promise just what is necessary and no more Sir in Ages after the first when the Church should grow from a Grain of Mustard-seed to be a Tree of vast extent in such a vast compasse and in progresse of many Ages a world of doubts would rise which Bookes were Scripture which not Which corrupted Scripture which not Which was the undoubted sense of the uncorrupted Scripture which not Why might not Christ for any thing you know by Scripture think this a sufficient Reason to promise an assistance extended to infallibility for other Ages of the Church as well as for the first age Will an authority so assisted to testifie all this infallibly be lesse necessary then so many Authorities to Testifie that Jesus Christ was the true Messias after it was infallibly Testified by true Scripture And all these Testimonies were given to the Jewes as ill as they were disposed How then can you say of the Church of Christ that she for want of this Disposition was deprived of this Assistance in all Ages but the first VVhat you adde of Traditions hath been already Answered See also Number Twelve But what you adde of Scripture having still the same certaintie is apparently false speaking as you speake in Order to assure us For you your selfe confesse that divers Bookes of Scripture as the Apocalyps c. are now held certain which were not held so before Again many and a good many bookes of Scripture are quite lost How know you by Scripture only that no necessary point for practice or beliefe contained in those bookes only did not perish with the bookes themselves And as for the bookes we have you see how uncertain we remain about the true sense of them in highest points Then they had the Apostles themselves or the known Disciples of the Apostles to tell them the meaning of these words This is my Body is this so really or figuratively only These words Baptize all Nations do or do not include Infants To be a Priest or a Bishop was to have power to sacrifice to absolve or was it not Now times make these held for uncertainties whereas by and by you admit that by this promise of Christ the Church is secure from damnable error though not from all simple errors for then no body should be left for God to be withal you admit that which will destroy quite what you said before For before you said Heresie consisted in opposition to clear Scripture whence all those must needs be Hereticks who opposed clear Scripture Therefore all those who held these prime points in which you and we differ with us against you were Hereticks for they held these points which as you say are against clear Scripture But by your own confession Christ had no visible Church baptizing teaching all Nations c. but those who held these prime points in which we and you differ wherefore we must confesse that Christ was with these Opposers of evident Scripture or else you cannot shew with what Members of the Church he was for all these last ages preceding the Reformation Let us go on 30. What kind of assistance Christ promised may be gathered behold a fifth Text out of several words in the 14. chapter of Saint John there verse 15. he saith I will pray the Father and he shall give another Comforter that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive And verse 27. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things and suggest unto you all things whatsoever I shall say unto you And chap. 16. ver 12. I have yet many things to say unto you How be it when the spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth I aske now according to these Texts How long is this spirit of Truth to abide with them in their successours For ever saith the Text. Shall he also secure those with whom he for ever abideth from all errour He will guide you into all Truth saith the Text. Give me then leave lesse to regard what you say to the contrary Where there is all Truth there is no errour If you answer there is no Fundamental errour I Reply that all Truth excludes all errour either in points Fundamental or not Fundamental And being you cannot assuredly tell me which points be Fundamental which not which destructive of salvation which not which be curable which are not you must grant me that she is to be believed in all points And fear not to believe her She will guide you into all Truth Therfore you may securely follow her in all herwaies This promise of Christ made equally to the Apostles and
and privately exhort us to seek out and serve God we are not to dispair that there is some authority appointed by the same God on which authority we relying as on an assured step may be lifted up to God My adversary wil needs read these last words thus On which authority we relying as on an assured step may be lifted up to God Velut gradu incerto innitentes attolluram ad Deum As if an unassured or an uncertain step could help to lift us up to God and were a thing to be relied upon to this end and given us as a help by God to this end that we may rely upon it and we being so well provided of uncertainty in the authority appointed by God for us ought nor to despair of coming by this authority to the certain truth Is not this perfect and compleat non-sense And can you think in earnest that here you have reason to tell me that the scope of St. Austins discourse may discover my corrupting his Text Doth it not evidently discover the corruption of your FrobeniaÌ„ Edition An. 1569. which would needs read Gradu incerto innitentes attellamur ad Deum whereas other Editions read gradu certo innitentes even the Edition of Erasmus whose judgement yours use to esteem most accurate Yea he in the beginning of his Edition professeth to put down such a Note as this is when he varieth from the Frobenian Edition and yet here he putteth no such note in his Paris Edition Anno 1555. which Edition of Erasmus is ancienter then yours So that your Frobenian Edition corruptedly differeth in this place from that ancienter Frobenian Edition of which Erasmus made mention a dozen years before yours was printed Neither can you make any thing like sense of S. Austins words by reading them as you cited them that by the authority appointed by God we should as by an uncertain step be lifted up to God So that here you may easily perceive how little reason you had to carp at infallibility And again you had as litle reason to put me in mind that one part of that authority of which St. Austin here speaketh is drawn from the miracles which Christ did Sir do these miracles make this authority to be relied upon as upon an unassured step or as upon an assured step to lift us up to God Now Sir how shal you ever be able to secure me that you can know and infallibly know corrupted Scripture from uncorrupted when I see this your talent in knowing corruptions so deficient as I have here shewed it to be even when you are so confident of it that you charge your adversary of corruption which had you not done he had now made no use of this place so clear to his purpose But he must needs now expect a better answer from you to this place 37. In my 24. I intreat you not to explicate the places which I had above alledged for the Churches infallibility Of my 24. â—h Number as if they were to be understood so as onely to be true when the Church judgeth conformably to Scripture for even in that sence the devil himselfe father of Lyes is infallible so long as he teacheth conformable to Scripture and the gates of hell cannot by errour prevail against the devil of Hell Yea as long as he doth this he will be the pillar and ground of Truth that is subordinately as you speak of the Church to wit so far as either of them rely on the written word You answer first that we are not commanded but forbidden to consult with the Devil but we are enjoyned to consult with the Church of God I answer that this hinders not his being infallible as long as he speaketh conformably to Scripture And I am glad to see you acknowledge a command to consult with the Church for sure I am that this must be understood of consulting with a visible Church and visible in all Ages For people were in all ages to obey this command of consulting with her But it is impossible in any age to consult with an invisible Church Therefore there was in all ages a true visible Church Secondly you say we have alwayes cause to suspect the Divel I answer this hinders not his being truly infallible so long as he teacheth conformably to Scripture In your third answer you seem to make the divel and the Church agree for you neither believe the divel in point of truth upon his authority nor the Church to speak truth upon her authority wherefore for all you have said as yet the divel may as well be the pillar and ground of truth as the Church though I confesse freely it is not his office to be so Again though you be not moved to think that the divel saith to be true yet this hinders not his speaking as true as the Church doth as long as he speaketh conformable to Scripture And though I grant that you may in some respect make more account of what the Church saith for her authority then of what the devil saith upon his authority yet standing still in our case which supposeth the divel de facto to deliver what is conformable to Scripture you who refuse to give an infallible assent to what the Church saith at all times but when you see that which she saith to be conformable to Scripture you I say must never build this assent as infallible more upon the Church then upon the divel to whose saying you would give an infallible assent when you see that which he saith to be conformable to Scripture But whilst you are so busie in giving so many answers to what I said about the divel you smother up that which clearly overthroweth the reply of you and yours who say we must follow the Church only so far as we see her follow Scripture For I shewed that those who could not see at all how far the Church followed Scripture were bound to follow that Church for the first two thousand yeares of the world which were before all Scripture or before what was known to be the Scripture in substance or before it were known whether there should be any Scripture or no. So how could those many barbarous Nations who never having seen the Scripture did truly believe as S. Ireneus testifies what was taught them by the Church though they could not possibly see how far that which was taught them and that which they believed did agree with the Scripture which they had never seen 38. Your two next paragraphs contend to take from me two of my former texts cited for the infallibility of the Church by expounding those texts not to speak of the visible Church But I have shewed the contrary concerning them both Concerning that out of Daniel I did shew this even now Num. 34. Concerning that out of Esay I shewed it Num. 32. And 33. As for all additional testimonies out of Fathers you know why I resolve to passe them Of my
might gaine more credit to their error by holinesse of life as Socinus and others You come then to refute my arguments First it is so far from being contrary from that text you err not knowing the Scriptures that it is most agreeable to it For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of the Scripture is to permit such and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures as are most fit to erre in the interpretation of them And is this a good refutation And therefore the meaning of our Saviour must be according to your use they erred because they have the knowledge of the Scriptures which they mis-interpreted Shift you how you will you cannot evade was the knowledge of the Scriptures the cause of their error no that is contrary to our Saviour who said you err not knowing the Scriptures was it necessary that those who did know the Scriptures should mis-interpret them no for then that will by a recideration come into the same inconvenience for then the knowledge will be a certain mean at least in a large sense of this mis-interpretation And so it would be our best way to know nothing of Scripture that so we may not err 3. Can we imagine that our Saviour Christ discoursed as you do that because by our fault the Scriptures are an occasion of mis-interpretation therefore the people should not commonly use them is this symbolicall to the sense of our Saviour's words you err not knowing the Scriptures 4. Our Saviour then by you rebukes their mis-interpretation then he would have them know the Scriptures better not have the people deprived of them 5. There is a double knowledge as to this purpose 1. An habituall Knowledge which is chiefly of the Principles in Scripture this they had in their mind Then there is an actuall Knowledge which consists in an application of those Principles to particular Conclusions of belief and practise They were wanting it seems in the later in that they did not so as they should consider that text in Moses which our Saviour makes use of for the Resurrection They might have inferred the Resurrection from that text and so not have erred Therefore had they more need to look over the Scriptures again and consider them better The saying of the Jew is good He that reads a book an hundred times is not like him that readeth it an hundred times and one The oftner we read it especially the Bible the more we see in it But you bring a corroboration of your answer specially being licensed to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority of the Church if they stand in their way Sir this will not do 1. We licence them not to crosse all Antiquity we need not give them such a direction and surely if they should you would have no cause to blame them We have liberty to use that of the Philosopher in his Rhet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you look to that who contradict God and Fathers and Doctors 2. They cannot intend surely the crossing of all Antiquity for certainly they do not know all Antiquity yea if you speak all Antiquity with a full universality there are few of your own learned men that know it And therefore if any of their interpretations doth crosse antiquity it doth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is but by accident And in things necessary they are not so like to do so 3. Who is there of all your men that have proved this proposition that the Consent of the Fathers supposed makes an argument of Divine Faith therefore though we love their company yet we desire to see our way But object to us nothing but that which is proper How shall your men know that what they hold doth not crosse all Antiquity The Authority of the Church gives them neither faith of it nor Knowledge Yea some of yours say omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic You go on And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding the knowledge of the Scripture c. unto secondly Ans You make your self sport with the Ambiguity of the word Knowledge You mean it by way of a Science as Physick we do not say that Trades-men make any knowledge of Divinity so as to give an account of the principles of Divinity in the body of it no but they may have a knowledge of Scripture sufficient for their use although they do not teach others As if there were plain principles of Physick in our language we might make use them for our selves as Tiberius said after thirty years of age he would laugh at those who did need a Physitian you are deceived then or would deceive in the fallacie of consequent though all Science be knowledge all knowledge is not Science for knowledge is more generall and therefore surely of it self doth not inferre the most perfect species You say secondly you in vaine object that of St. Paul that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation c. unto thirdly wherein you allow the truth of the text with your gloss namely not as they are interpreted by every giddy fansie but by Tim. who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of by orall tradition Ans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what will you get by this answer If you understand by orall tradition such doctrines of the Gospell which were first preached afterwards written we grant you the use of such orall traditions but this boots you not for you must have traditions in point of faith besides what is written and such we deny unto you that Timothy had And I prove my deniall by your own words For how could Timothy understand Scripture by what was beside Scripture you speake of his understanding the Scripture by tradition tradition of proper name is that which is beside Scripture in the matter of it and how can he by that which is different in matter understand the Scripture If you mean by orall Traditions some traditive interpretations as learned men call them of the more difficult passages of Scripture this indeed were more reasonable in the hypothesis as to Timothy but this is nothing to us unlesse you can tell us certainly how many and what they are If there were such and lost then your Church is lost 2. Againe we allow no giddy fansie to define the sense of Scripture but in things necessary and plain their own knowledge may be sufficient and their private judgement may be as safely exercised in the sence thereof as in the choice of your Religion But thirdly by your own words I will conclude against you a fortiori for if the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise who was a Teacher much more others since as Mr. Cressy and you afterwards affirm there is more requisite to a Minister to be believed than others If then they be able to make a Minister wise unto salvation then one of the People much more who according
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
and pat could the most important matter in debate betwixt us have been more distinctly orderly and fully put down than to have shewn from place to place where I had not answered directly to the state of the question or had hit the question but did not sufficiently take off the Argument And could his Reply be by this manner more clear and perspicuous when it cannot appeare plainly how he took off my Answers or answered to the matter or form of my occasionall Arguments If this be an orderly Combate then let us beat the aire and that will be sufficient to beat an Adversary Thus much of the first Chapter which is no hard Chapter The Answer to the second Chapter No necessity of a Judge in all Controversies to whom all should be bound simply to submit their assent Num. 1. MY Adversarie says here that I go about to perswade him that he is most likely to take up his Religion by prejudice Ans It seems he is pleased to forbeare any Answer to my retortion of his similitude but he takes notice of my returning to him the greater probabilitie of prejudice in point of Religion to be on their part And he argues the contrary because being Recusants upon this account are liable to lose two parts of their Estates and what else we are or shall be pleased to take from them be it goods libertie or life Ans The prejudice on their part was as I said upon the opinion of the infalibilitie of their Church so that I spake upon account of a religious interesse and he answers me upon a civill account rather This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore this answer is not pertinent And whereas he would seem to have good ground in Conscience for his Religion for which he suffers so much if he intends to vye with us in that kind others of our Religion have suffered more from them Surely he forgets the Marian days wherein we dropped more blood than they have done And whereas he saies to me and what else you are or shall be pleased to take from us As to this much might be said also without passion in the same kind No man can take away more from us than our lives one would think Yes Roman Catholicks would take away from us Heaven too They had almost destroyed me upon earth saith the Psalmist But these will destroy us in heaven also Secondly If he who was mine Adversary was a Native of England he was as much included in the order of his deprivation as I. Thirdly I will say more yet that some of his Religion have had more favour than we Yea yet more than this one whom I think he knows well hath lost more in proportionall quantity as Aquinas distinguisheth than any of them hath lost who hath lost but two parts of three and for Conscience too Therefore that character which I gave the Romanist he is to keep still untill he can prove it doth belong more to us Certainly this is not proved not to belong to them because they have suffered so much for their Religion for we have suffered more and therefore it doth not belong to us but them rather But this suffering de se is easily known not to make an Argument for unlesse our cause be good before we suffer we have no cause to suffer at all The saying is common Causa non passio facit Martyrem Fourthly As for the present sufferings of the Papists they are neither rightly charged either upon our Church or upon our Kingdome for there is not yet proved any legall consent of either to what they or others have suffered Nay fifthly At the day of Judgement we shall see whether they are not more like to answer for what we have suffered than we for what they have suffered in these times So that while they do not see what is true against them they will seem to see what is not true against us As Tertullian said But let us come to the matter To examine then your grounds in the second num Num. 2. That God hath made man to a supernaturall end and to be attained by supernaturall meanes we grant as Aquinas in the begining of of his sums Take men indefinitely and confusely without exclusion of Infants dying before Baptisme from Salvation possible and those who are not compotes mentis and we grant it And also that amongst those meanes the first is true faith and that according to his mercifull providence he hath provided us some way to this faith so easie that all if they pleased might be brought to the knowledge of it namely exceptis excipiendis And that the greater part of men are ignorant yea all naturally ignorant of the way to this supernaturall end as Aquinas because it is supernaturall these things we yield to you And that because the far greater part were ignorant it beseemed his goodnesse who is the lover of soules to provide us such a way as that ignorant men should not be able unlesse by wilful carelesnesse to erre by it These things we do willingly yield But we demurre upon your assumption that this way should be the Church as you interpret that of Isaiah the 35 where you say the Prophet speakes of a path and a way which shall be so direct that fools cannot erre by it Here we must stand a while and inquire what is the sense of this way And first I must note that you do not rightly render the words according to the Hebrew veritie You say and it shall be unto you a direct way so that fools cannot erre But it is not so in the text But thus He shall be to them or with them walking the way and fools shall not erre How is your Church like to be this way when either you erre in not following it or it doth erre in not right following the text And you make it to be in the text a direct way and so that fools cannot erre Whereas it is rather shall not erre which doth note so much infalibilitie as preservation from error Now a negative of the act doth not prove a negative of the power for then the Argument would be good a non esse ad non posse Therefore could my Adversary have proved that the Church of Rome never erred which will never be proved yet all is not yet whole because infalibilitie is not yet proved by the not erring but by an impossibilitie of erring And if you may erre by carelesnesse as before then when were any sure of being right for who can be sure he hath been as carefull as he should be and therefore if this be the condition of not being deceived yea of infalibilitie it is at least morally impossible that any should be assured in their faith because they may be wanting in their diligence and so also may demerit a deprivation of Divine light My Adversary goes on To elude this text you say sure we may be that
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
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
definition of the Doctors but rather is evidently against it by which he concludes in this his review the definition of the Roman Doctors to be false And yet this is the plainest text for them And therefore let the Popish Collier be convinced by some clearer Argument out of Scripture to believe as the Church believeth or else to the eternall good of misled souls confesse that if you give not private men leave finally to resolve themselves in Scripture the Roman can finde no means upon earth to put an end unto the main controversies the Church not sufficing for this end unlesse we should take the Church as commending us to Scripture for our direction under pain of being accounted not Christians For how are we bound upon pain of Damnation to believe that Jesus is the Christ without that which is written in Scripture But it will be said that the Popish Collier should not have leave given him to examine the Scripture's sense no more than the Arrian Cobler should have leave to examine the Councils definition but both should absolutely rest in the definition of a Council To this we answer severall things First it is a mighty prejudice to the Roman cause that they account blind obedience to the Church a duty This darke lantern that none should see them but their own men breeds great suspition The Roman cannot perswade the Arrian to rest in a Council and therefore a Council will not make an end with all of all controversies Thirdly if the Arrian were to rest in a Council he would say the Council of Ariminum were as considerable to him as the Council of Nice to the Homorsiasts Fourthly General Councils for the purest times of the Church were not celebrated and therefore this is not the universall way of satisfaction and absolute determinative of faith Fifthly we have no prejudice against the four General Councils we embrace them and they make no prejudice against us therefore if we hold as they hold points of faith we are as saveable as they Sixthly the plainest Council they have for them is the Council of Trent and yet the Popish Collier cannot acquiesce in that because although they say it was yet he may doubt whether it was a free Generall Council And I hope since my Adversary saies we must take infallibility from the Generall Council we may have leave to examine whether that was a free Generall Council And here we must contradistinguish the Church unto the Council and we must not believe the Council for the Church for then the infallibilitie would lie in the Church not in the Council Well and must we take the Councill to be right and good from it self suppose we were to receive undisputedly the Decrees of faith in a Generall Council yet we must be assured first that this was a Generall free Council then it is left us to examine the Council though not the definitions for if the Scripture cannot prove it self as they suppose then the Councill cannot and therefore the Popish Collier may examine the Council And how shall he content himself about the Councill in the generalitie of it since there was so few persons in it sometimes but forty three Legates and Abbots being put in and some titular Bishops onely sometimes forty eight for a good while not above sixty the Prelates of other Nations not there not a Bishop or Divine of all Germany there in the yeare 1546 no French Bishop could be there and therefore no Generall Council As the French King said page 314. and by reason of the paucitie of the persons then there forty eight Bishops and five Cardinalls and not one of the Prelates remarkable for learning and some of them Lawyers and some Courtiers the Decrees of the Council about Apocryphall books and making authenticall a translation differing from the Originall did displease in Germany as it is set down in the History of the Trent Council p. 163. * And for the freenesse of it the Collier might deny that by severall passages for absolute autority was given to the Legats of the Pope to procreed without consent of Council p. 113. Derogations from the liberty of the Council noted p. 232. the Bishop of Fiesole complained of to the Pope for reasonable freedom p. 167 8. Amongst the three things the Pope admonished his Legates one was to take beed that by no means the Popes authority be disputed on p. 164 And yet this is the point which formally denominates the Popish Religion And his being Head of the universall Church as he presumes is the point which denominates their Church the Roman Catholick Yea it was protested against by the French King which was of force against it according to some prohibentis conditio potior as p. 320. And therefore cannot the Popish Collier finally resolve his faith in a Council upon its own conciliarie authority And assuredly if the Arrian Cobler and the Popish Collier were both to dispute the same point one by the Scripture the other by the Council the Cobler would sooner convince the Collier by Scripture which he doth acknowledge as certain than the Collier the Cobler by the Council which he doth not acknowledge so yea if the Collier and the Cobler were equally disposed to finde truth indifferently to their opinions the Cobler might sooner settle his mind in Scripture than the Collier in a Council for the Cobler hath no more to do than to finde out the sense of Scripture and then he is satisfied but the Collier when he hath found out the sense of the Council is not satisfied because if he were assured that a free and generall Council was infallible he might yet doubt of the hypothesis whether this Council were so But it is false in these that a generall Council though free is infallible and that we are bound to believe so for why then would not the Pope put the main question out of question Either he did suspect the point himself or did suspect his own Subjects in the Council or did suspect that it did not bind unto necessary belief or else he was deceived in point of prudence which is most unlikely to have that waved Num. 5. He proceeds This your Doctrine maketh the definitions of true Councils and their finall determinations to be indeed no definitions nor finall determinations at all Ans This in reasoning would prove a Schisme a dicto secundum quid Because I deny them to be finall in your sense therefore I deny them to be finall in all sense is not consequent It doth not follow from the deniall of one species to the deniall of all Finall definitions as to humane Tribunals I acknowledge them but finall so as to exclude the examination of them by Scripture I deny Final as to peace and not to be refractary I grant but finall as to necessary assent upon the Councils account I deny That we may finde truth by them I yield because so many abilities united with Gods
thus Since you bring the authority of Councils to a little more than nothing and again the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing in order to the ending of Controversies this your violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers will give me leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the begining appeared possible for it is evident out of your own words that it is to no end to deale with you out of Fathers and I am resolved to deale with no body but to some end I will therefore humor you in this and I will lay aside all that might hereafter be said concerning the opinion of Fathers Ans Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem My Adversary is so curious in this apology of his that he is to be suspected I gave no such occasion but he takes it against the use of the Fathers in this point I am not guilty in any sober mans judgement of any privative disrepect unto them I do not bring the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing what is due justly either to Councils or to Fathers I do willingly give But because infallibility is not granted therefore am I charged with disrespect This is a fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that denies them this doth not deny unto them such reverence as is equal And for the Fathers I have not waved any testimony which hath been produced against our cause I have not said as he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea I have used the same Argument against my Adversaries in triumphum Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he in his Rhetorick but I have said nothing which is not conformable to the word of God to the consent of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church but because I will not make the word of the Fathers and of the Doctors equall to the infallible word of God therefore am I not reasonably accused of slighting the Fathers and Doctors of the antient Church But this was necessary for my Adversary to colour his refusall of answering to those Fathers I brought against him and to the answers which I gave to the testimonies of the Fathers which he brought against me So difficulty is sometimes by Sophisters construed for impertinency By this Argument I must say nothing proper but what may be easily answered But it had been more ingenuous first to have exhibited solid authorities out of the Fathers of the Primitive antiquity or at least to have given a sufficient answer to my refutation of what use he made of those he quoted against me and then to have laid aside the urging of the Fathers upon my account of Refusall of them onely as infallible Judges To gather up then my exceptions against this part of his apologie I say first I do not either in terms or by consequence bring Councils to a little more than nothing nor the authority of the Fathers to little lesse than nothing in order to the ending of Controversies I allow them to be of great use in his terms in order to the ending of Controversies There may be an ordinability of them towards or in order to this end without infallibility in them they may finde out and give us the infallible sense of Scripture but we cannot take it so upon their word their authority is moving but not cogent of our assent Secondly I except against those words wherein he imputes to me a violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers This I deny Neither in termes nor by discourse can they finde such words or sense from me I have used their own weapon against them I have answered their objections from them I renew the provocation and challenge which Bishop Jewell and others of our Divines have made to them to shew if they can any notable part yea any two yea any one of the ancient Fathers that clearly and constantly hath professed the points wherein we differ from them And if the Fathers had been for them why did they corrupt some passages of the Fathers which spoke against them which they have not yet cleared themselves of Yea thirdly whereas he says my refusall of the Fathers will give him leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the beginning I say not insisting here upon the impropriety of a Treatise if it be no more as to my satisfaction or of the terme if it be more that there had been rome enough for all the Fathers authorities he could produce for himself and also for all that he could say to my answers about their testimonies without Theremaking his Treatise so long if he had left out impertinences and references and repetitions Therefore hath my Adversary taken more liberty than I afforded him in his refusall of dealing with the Fathers yet not more liberty than was necessary for him lest he should be in necessity to answer what answers I made to his former testimonies of them and also to what testimonies I have produced against him And I finde him wary lest I should make this advantage of his resolution to wave the Fathers He would make it to be no design but a rationall purpose therefore he goes on But doe not think that I doe this as if what you here said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me or as if what you say were in the least degree hard to be answered for you yourself cannot be ignorant that we alleadge plenty of the Fathers against you as are confessed by your selves to have been the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church Ans The rule is good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And surely he is not damned that doth not believe that all which is said by men on their own behalf is true But secondly they do not produce many testimonies of the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church namely not of the first 300 years nay nor of the first 600 years others are Postnates and have not the honor of Primitive Antiquity Yea some they name as testimonies for them were not Fathers And some works they cite for them which are falsely ascribed to true Fathers as several of our Writers have demonstrated even with the Confession of some of their Church Thirdly whereas he saies Do not think that I do this as if what you have said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me he wrongs me with a fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he would have men believe that I spake against the authority of the Fathers simply because I spake against their authority as absolutely convictive of the understanding in point of truth And also whereas he saies it did not find credit with him I am of his opinion for certainly little is like to be believed by the Pontificians that is against them But after this manner his Treatise might soon be answered it finds not credit with me One blot would serve for all the Treatise Fourthly what
reason may this be called the Pontificians use plenty of the Fathers against us therefore he will not answer to my testimonies from them nor to my answers to his testimonies against us Doe any of those Pontificians fully answer my testimonies and doe they sufficiently take off my answers If they doe he should have told me which and where But were I as apt to brag as the Romans are I might not be far from crying victoria that I should stand to answer the Fathers and bring them to stand for us though my Adversary saies I bring them to lesse than nothing and yet he that makes so much of them in shew should detrect this way of plea by them Whereas their small errors used presently to be discovered and cryed down This is not altogether true For how many of their errors continued long yea great errors also as the Millenarie opinion And Infant Communion was not presently decreed neither Therefore yet it remaines to be proved that any of the points of difference betwixt the Papists and us was a standing opinion of the Primitive times which my Adversary would insinuate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it would make a learned man amazed to ask as you do how few of them have touched upon our differences Ans There is no such cause of Amazement Learned men in generall wonder lesse and learned men cannot wonder particularly at this as knowing the reason which was added by me having not occasion by Adversaries and therefore doth my Adversary wisely passe by any mention of the reason as not being pertinent for his use But also was that I said well guarded first how few I did not say none Secondly I said touched namely as to handle and this is necessary to be believed because indeed there were few of them Argumentative then though some of them might put out occasionally some expressions relating to our differences yet is not this to touch argumentatively our differences for aliud agentis parva autoritas as the rule is And then thirdly if many of them at least did not touch so as to handle discursively all our differences there is no cause of admiring my speech for if they had handled some not all how should we have been directed in those which they had not handled Now then let all be considered then upon the whole matter let me say this that if any Pontifician can prove that many of them did handle argumentatively all the points of debate betwixt us then I shall give leave for the amazement of my expression Therefore as to the Authors he produceth of his side who give account of the Fathers in our diffâ—rences as Coccius Gualterus the Author of the Progeny of the Catholicks and Protestants or any other named by any other I say this that he should have told me particulary where each of them doth produce any Father and in what point and also should have shewed in them that many Fathers have all conjunctively spoken of the severall points and also that they have spoken of them directly on purpose where the seat of the matter was and also that no where they contradict what in one place they said or at least did not elsewhere speak doubtingly otherwise he concludes not any thing of weight against me And then secondly I can returne my Adversary number for number and weight for weight of our own who have answered all the testimonies of the Fathers which their learned Champions have produced as Bishop Jewell Dr. Whitaker Dr. Reynolds besides Chamier of France who have refuted the instances of the Fathers Yea the challenge of the first of them was never yet well answered as to the testimony of the Fathers And thirdly either the Fathers cannot be brought in with their suffrages for them or they can if they cannot why doth Campian and others crack and brag of the Fathers and then also my Adversaries Authors are disannulled If they can then either the Fathers speak contradictions since we produce them as well for us and therefore cannot we be ruled by them or else my Adversary needed not to have shifted the answering to them but might have found other passages out of them to have commodiously reconciled the seeming variance Yea then either my Adversary had not such cause to rest infallibity in a Council if all the Fathers of all ages agreed or the consent of the Fathers might be a rule to the Council and then my discourse of the Fathers had good conjunction with the Controversie about Councils As for the Author of the Progeny of Catholicks and Protestants whom he brings in here as handling a part all our main differences and doth in all these points give us the very words of our own chief Doctors clearly acknowledging a great number of holy Fathers directly opposit to us in each one of these points To this I answer that it is possible some of our Church may not meet with right editions of the Fathers might not discerne their true works might mistake the sense and application of some words or not being able dexterously to reconcile their expressions to some other passages of the Fathers and to our opinions might conclude them as opposit If this Argument were good then are they also bound to conclude the Fathers to be on our side because Bellarmin produceth in his Disputations testimonies of the Fathers for us Indeed he endeavours to answer those testimonies but I dare affirme that severall of those testimonies which the Author hath produced from our own side of the Fathers may as well be answered as some of those which Bellarmin answers Thirdly my Adversaries might have known also that there is a book written by none of ours which is a Confutation of Papists by Papists So then if they will set our Divines against us we can set their Divines against them yea also in severall points were the testimonies of the Primitive Church urged against some of their points in the Trent Council by some of their Church Fourthly I have read Breerley through it being commended to me by one who thought I think thereby to convince me in the case and I can give no other account than as Mr. Chillingworth doth that he hath not dealt exactly with the Confessions of those of our Church as in the instance of some passages out of Mr. Hooker as may be seen in Mr. Chillingworth page 62. As also in a passage of Luther as may be seen in Mr. Chilling If the pages 79 and 92 be compared And therefore have we no reason to be concluded against upon his word yea some of the authorities he bringeth do not respect the main points betwixt us and as I remember some authorities are not contradictory to our cause and therefore was I rather confirmed by reading of that book And therefore groundlesse is my Adversaries excuse for not medling with the holy Fathers in this Controversie betwixt us Though they did not professedly discusse and determine our questions and
them in all things reduplicatively but Pride against God Therefore the Apostles who understand their duty said Acts 4 19. Whether it be just to obey God or you judge ye But it may be a generall Council cannot command any thing unlawfull so they say No They cannot de jure but surely it is possible were not the Apostles then commanded after the Council had consulted not to preach in the name of Jesus And if they say the Council erred not in faith herein but in point of action we answer first they erred in the faith of a practicall point that practicall dictamen that such a command might be laid upon them was erroneous Secondly they erred ex consequenti in this most fundamentall point that Jesus is the Christ And therefore thirdly they erred so far as by their error they destroyed Christian Religion Therefore infallibility doth not univocably belong to Councils therefore may they erre therefore are we not absolutely to obey them therefore Humility doth not dispose simply to an obedience of faith such Humility is voluntary humility and not a virtue And the Divels Rebellion he speaks of for want of Humility is not much to his purpose though true will this consequence be weighty the Divill by Pride rebelled against God therefore we by Humility would believe a Council in whatsoever they say we are disputing now upon the obedience of belief as he would have it now the Divill did not rebell against God in point of disbelief which respects the understanding but in point of independency which respects the will The Divels Rebellion was against God as the Summum Bonum not as the Summum Verum For as to belief simple if there were a proper obedience in it they seem to believe still and therefore to be obedient if this were an obedience because they are said to believe and tremble And their Rebellion was a sin of malice and this speaks a most free opposition of the will but our unbelief of some things decreed in Councils is necessary to the understanding as not seeing reason of assent and therefore is it not to be charged upon want of Humillity Whereas then he says Pride is stiled the Mother of Heresie it is easily distinguished that in Heresie there are two parts the materiall part which is the holding of that which is contrary to an Article of faith and the formall part which is the obstinate opposing the Church in it Pride is the Mother of the latter but it is not absolutely the Mother of the former For the Apostles did not disbelieve at first the Resurrection of Christ upon pride And then St. Paul could not have excused himself in the persecution of the Church that he did it by ignorance and so there could be no simple error So that what he says is not here pertinent for we are now in dispute about the obedience of faith in his sense not about the obedience of peace His argument concludes the latter rather than the former And this he prompts me to in his next words Now as Humility bringeth with her this necessary submission in the interiour so Charity is the vertue which will be sure to see that peace and unity be kept exteriourly in the Church Ans The former part is sufficiently evacuated Humility and faith are not of the same Conjugation faith historicall which we speake of or dogmatical is subjected in the understanding Humility is a morall vertue And a morall virtue cannot be a speculative principle Neither are they always of a combination For he that is humble is not always in the right opinion and he that is proud is not always in the wrong opinion And if Pride were but symptomaticall to error it would be ill for Rome But for the latter part that Charity will endeavour to keep peace and unity is not like to be denied yet we must see that our Charity and Unity be regular we must not for Charity lose Truth though in pursuance of Truth we must not lose Charity We hold our own and give good words of others We would be one in judgement and that is of Charity but not by conforming to any in error so we should forsake truth However we will not differ in love for we can love those that differ and pray for them and be ready to joine with them when they will leave their error or not injoin it to us Indeed the use of Councils is more respective to the formal part of heresie and therefore we do formally satisfie them in reverence and peace duely weighing what they decree and decreeing to hold what is due Grant no other submission and urge no other submission to any Councils and we have done Here the first five lines do beg the question which we have been disputing of Par. 15. and if they did of themselves prove any thing would prove more than that he speaks of exteriour unity For if the Church did unerrably lead us into truth as the Kings High way then we should have one judgement and perswasion which would make interiour unity But though exteriour unity as he speaks is not sufficient to his dispute yet is it enough for the demand of the Church visible The Church invisible which as such hath a necessary connexion with salvation consists of those who do agree as one in points proposed by God because they are to be believed and are ready to believe what is to be believed because proposed when the proposall is clear But the Church visible is contented with his exteriour unity which is not broken by private suspension of assent for this exteriour unity is sufficiently conserved negatively by a non opposition Exteriour unity is contradistinguished to interiour he provides for exteriour unity then he provides for that which is contradistinguished to faith What then is become of the application of all his discourse to faith in Councils But to let this passe I see he doth not like my Syllogism for him I put his matter in as good a form as it would bear in short and categorically but he is not pleased with it and therefore without further answer to it he says he will do it yet more clearly for himself in this manner under pain of damnation all are bound to agree in this that every one interiourly giveth an infallible assent to all such points as are necessary to be believed for salvation but all can never be brought to agree in giving enteriourly this infallible assent to all such points without they submit their assent to some living Judge indued with infallibility Therefore all can never be brought to agree in that in which they are bound to agree under pain of damnation without they all submit their interiour assent to some living Judge indued with infallibility This is his Syllogism And an answer is expected to it although he would give no answer to mine which gave him a distinction able enough to save the text he seems to build upon
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
these are plainly enough set down in Scripture if the Roman Church had not disturbed the clear waters for the chief Fisher and if not the Church by positive law cannot appoint that which is absolutely necessary to salvation All things that are of Divine right are not simply necessary to salvation to be sure then what is not of Divine but positive right as the Romans have also distinguished is not simply necessary And therefore whereas he says there are endles Controversies about them I am of his opinion in my sense of the words for they are to no end amongst those who have a sober mind to be directed in them by Scripture at least they are to no end as in order to our dispute because they come not within compasse of absolute necessity to salvation It may be necessary to know how these are to be ordered that they may be ordered rightly but this is not absolutely necessary to salvation yea again if these things were left to the Church we must take the order before the Councils otherwise the Church before the time of Councils had wanted that which was necessary and therefore indeed are they not necessary or else God had been wanting to them in necessaries A third sort of things necessary not plainly set down as he thinks we have in his fourth number Num 4. All being obliged to serve God in a true Church c. This is ambiguously delivered either as in sensu composito being in a true Church they are obliged to serve God in it or are bound to finde out the true Church and then to serve God in it Now though both belong to our duty yet both are not equally necessary because it is possible in that which is not a true Church if so many things be necessary to a true Church as they would have salvation may be had by simple ignorance and gerall repentance And I hope some were saved before a Church with all the integrants of a true Church was framed But in a true Church no man can be saved without serving of God The Church of the Donatists was not accounted by St. Austin nor my Adversary a true Church yet St. Austin did not deny but some might be saved in it Now this is understood by my Adversary in the latter way namely that every one is bound to finde out the true Church and to serve God in it for so it followeth Having a lawfull succession of true Pastors truely ordained themselves and truely ordaining the Priests who must be known to administer true Sacraments in their true matter and forme Preaching also the word of God by lawfull mission Ans Now me thinks the Romans with their mountains should have relation to Montanus who fansied that the Paraclet did by priviledge come into him to make up what was wanting to salvation by inspiration For we must have infallible notes of a Church which the word of God in Scripture hath not appointed to us And we must have things necessary to salvation which the Scripture hath not made necessary yet they must be necessary to salvation for their use Certainly as he gives well the cognisance of a good man so may we also make use of it for a good Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we ought not to judge honest men by their performances but by their purpose so we ought to esteem good Christians not by their happinesse to finde but by their purpose to finde out the true Church which cannot reasonably be done by a lawfull sucession First because this is accidentall not as to salvation onely but as to a true Church and therefore can be no certain and universall rule for how came the first Church which was originall to the Descendants to be a true Church yea secondly how will the true Church be a true Church according to their principles in the time of Antichrist when there is not like to be according to their profession almost any face of a Church How shall it then be discerned by a lawfull succession of Pastors Thirdly this cannot be characteristicall of the Roman Church which they would have to be the onely true Church because the Greek Church may challenge this priviledge also Yea fourthly it is possible that a false Church may so fairly plead a lawfull succession as the Church of the Donatists who had also Bishops as to those who should come a long while after them that it could not be easily discerned by common people and therefore this is not the way so plain and direct as that fools cannot err Yea fifthly we are not to discern true Doctrine by the persons but the persons by the Doctrine according to Tertullian as before and therefore if true Doctrine be not proved by succession as it cannot be because then it should be measured by the person we cannot conclude a true Church by the succession since all sober men will rather argue thus that is a true Church which professeth true Doctrine than that Church professeth true Doctrine because it hath a true succession of Pastors Yea sixthly did my Adversary mean what he said of a particular Church or of the universall Church Not of a particular Church sure for that cannot be the way and Judge of all Christians as he intended But then of the universall Catholick Church Well then he must mean that that is the true Catholick Church which hath a lawfull succession of Pastors namely of Bishops of Rome who is by them called signantly the Pastor of the Church This must be his meaning in reason because the lawfull succession of Pastors in particular Churches is by my Adversary necessary for themselves but not for the Catholick Church which can consist without those parts which are not true and therefore no parts And this is like to be his meaning by his opinion So then the Roman Church he would have here by the premisses to be the true Church as being supposed to have a lawfull succession of Pastors namely Bishops of Rome But how shall we give up our selves in absolute obedience to the guidance of the Roman Church if this were an infallible and constitutive mark of the true Church that it hath a lawfull succession of Pastors For no man can have so much as a morall certitude that there hath been in Rome from St. Peter an interrupted lawfull succession of Pastors much lesse can he have a Divine perswasion thereof For first it can never be proved by Scripture that St. Peter was at Rome I do not deny it that he was ever there but it is no object of faith And the Romanists are shrewdly put to it for a proof when to prove it they would interpret Babylon from which St. Peter writes to be Rome But then Secondly St. Peter should rather have derived the Priviledge of universall jurisdiction and infallible direction to Antioch as is abserved where he sate first seven years as Caranza sets it down and where Christians had their name
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
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
also it speaks plainly and so distinctly unto many other profitable points as that no doubt can remain of the true sense And fifthly whereas they say or if there be made any doubt of any thing of importance c. this new peice takes off from the old and makes the rent worse for if the living Oracle speaks so distinctly that no doubt can remain of the true sense then what need of any further provision for doubts emergents as if they durst not trust their own principles And again if they can assoile all doubts that shall arise why do they not why since the Trent Council hath there been no other to explain the sense of the former in severall particulars that which was never done and yet would be of such use is morally reputed for an impossibility as St. Jerom disputed against the Pelagians This would prove wilfull ignorance in the Church Representative And therefore cannot we be obliged to follow it absolutely for it seems sometimes it will not lead us And if they say that we may well be saved without the infallible dejudication of the sense of perplexed terms why do they then include in the case a thing of importance Yea and also we can then by their allowance say we may be safely ignorant of some points which are not of importance to salvation and therefore are in a capacity good enough to give the negative to a Judge infallible Nay sixthly neither can the doubt be presently cleared by some new Declaration authentically notified unto us by our Pastors and Doctors Not presently first because a Councill must be called which the Roman Church will be well advi of before and if it costs them as much time to consider of it and to dispatch it as the Trent Council this presently will not come within forty years and more And if he says the present Pope can presently deliver the sense and notify it authentically then why says he it may be done by Pastors and Doctors Why doth he speak in the number of plurality to the prejudice of the one Authoritative Pastor Well it may be he means Pastors and Doctors in common can authentically notifie us the sense then private Doctors may be authentick which spoils all and is contrary to Jesuit and Roman Catholicks as they call themselves in generall and to his own opinion who placeth all authority and infallibility in a Council confirmed by the Pope For we are bound they say to the sense of the Decrees then if private Doctors and Pastors can authentically notifie us the sense then are we bound to them Yea and also why may not then our private Pastors and Doctors declare to us the sense of doubtfull texts as well as theirs and then why an infallible Judge Yea can private Pastors and Doctors authentically notifie us the sense and not the infallible Judge If he can why doth he not If he will not how shall we take him for our Guide They have determined the words of their definitions but have either not determined or determined not to determine the acception and sense but that must be left for Pastors and Doctors And therefore seventhly and lastly he had better have not have produced these passages in reference to those texts For God gave us Pastors and Doctors then not onely one Pastor of the Church as the high Romanist accounts who makes all others to be as his Curates in all the universall Church Why then doth one arrogate that which in common is assigned to more Calvin in his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus thinks it unreasonable that the name of Bishop which is common to many should be appropriated to one though he denies not there the superiority of one to the rest of the Clergy and my Adversary would have the action of a Pastor authenticall to be common to many whereas the title others would have proper to one and to be given to the rest but analogically This text then by my Adversaries exposition derogates from the ordinary and universall Pastor because it alloweth his priviledge to many But then again he commits a fallacy of division in attributing the end to a part which is applied to the whole for it is said there And he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints the work of the Ministry They are all given complexively for that end and he takes it distributively and of the last As if all faith were to be resolved into the dictates of Pastors and Teachers whereas the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner stone Eph. 2.20 Yea and again there is to be made a difference between the Pastors and Doctors then and now there having been then better gifts given to them than now and they having been then nearer the fountain of Evangelicall truth than now and therefore though the office is continued it is not necessary that when the Christian Church hath been so long setled there should be such perfection in the successors Distingue tempora as the rule is His seventh number might well have been spared Num. 7. for he seems to charge me with not doing what in the eight number he says I go about to do Only whereas he says for me that the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation the terms may admit a distinction If he takes the terms all alone so as to be understood contradistinctly to an infallible Judge so we stand to them if he takes them so as to exclude all use of Pastors and Doctors so are not we bound to them we can in our opinion exclude the infallible Judge without exclusion to the direction of Pastors and Teachers which although not exempted from possibility of error yet may also be consulted even in texts sufficiently plain Besides as he states the point for us that the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation we can easily subscribe unto upon another distinction which we have in metaphysick about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the unapprehensivenesse of them doth more proceed from the weaknesse of the faculty than the nature of the things themselves so the Scriptures by themselves alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary although we were not able to perceive infallibly the sense of them All things necessary yet are infallibly taught there and therefore this serves to the evacuation of their verbum non scriptum because that this is not pretented for the clearing of Scripture but for the supply of matter defective Num. 8. To come now to the discussion of the texts And first you presse the second time that of St. Paul to Tim. 2.15 16. And here he says Take for my first Answer that which I gave you when you first alleadged this place ch 1. num
private judgement of discretion doth not infringe the authority of the Scripture used as God would have it used but the misapplication of it which he should have spoken to doth infringe the authority of the Scripture so used So we see he did not discourse properly But secondly he seems here to make nothing almost of Scripture unlesse used with due submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church And this also in effect begs the question whether we cannot make use of Scripture well as unto necessaries without submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church and also again it begs the question whether we are bound to stand to no sense of Scripture without submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church Yea thirdly we may also crookedly apply the determinations of the Church as hath been shewed de facto and therefore why doth he argue against the use of Scripture as the rule because it may yet be crookedly applied This argument is to us common with them we can use it against the Church as they use it against Scripture and therefore this cannot determine our particular Controversie Yea fourthly the Scripture which is acknowledged by my Adversary a most right rule is a rule to the Church too is it not If not then have they no Divine authority to shew for the authority of the Church if so then we can make use of Scripture without the authority of the Church because we make use of Scripture for the authority of the Church Omne per accidens reducitur ad aliquid per se So we may make use of Scripture by it self and therefore the authority of Scripture may be infringed without respect to the authority of the Church And therefore all he says comes to nothing unlesse he proves two points First that Scripture needs an infallible Interpreter for things necessary The second this that God doth provide us of an infallible Interpreter with infallible knowledge who it is Neither is this to speak more irreverently of Scripture than St. Peter spoke of St. Paul's Epistles He says the Scripture is a most right rule good He says it is infallible good He says he speaks no more irreverently of it than St. Peter spake of St. Paul's Epistles good Good words and we give good words for his good words But doth St. Peter put in the authority of the publick Interpretation of the Church to be necessary to the right applying of St. Paul's Epistles This did not St. Peter Did he say that St. Paul's Epistles doth not plainly contain any thing necessary to salvation this did not St. Peter Did he say that St. Paul saies in his Epistles that the Church is our infallible Guide and the way so plain that fools◠〈◊〉 err This did not St. Peter Did he sa◠〈◊〉 were so hard to be understood in St. Paul's Epistles This did not St. Peter If they will believe him without the attestation of his successor let them consider what he says in his 2. Ep. 1. ch 19 20 21. ver We have also a more firm word of Prophecy More firm or most firm as sometimes the Comparative for the Superlative More firm surely than the Church which in part is built upon it as St. Paul Whereunto ye doe well that ye take heed as to a light shining in a dark place c. And if a light shining in a dark place then it hath not such need of an infallible Interpreter we see light by itself It is not so dark and obscure as my Adversary would have it for it is a light shining in a dark place And certainly if that a light and shining in a dark place then the whole new Testament is a light so clear and sufficient as that we need not the help of an infallible Judge either to this light or in this light And can it be well immagined that Scripture being not of private exhibition or delivery because Prophecy came not of old time by the will of man but holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost can it be imagined that this should be by the Holy Ghost so obscurely or ambiguously proposed as that we must have necessity of a living Judge to make the sense of it sufficiently plain to salvation If the Holy Ghost can clearly give us the sense as speaking by his Church could he not as plainly give us the sense as when he spake by the Prophets Have we need of another Prophecy and Revelation of the sense But it seems by them God must accomodate the stile of Scripture for the use of the Roman Church and must invelope it in cloudy difficulties that we must go to Rome to see the Sun of Righteousnesse shining there as in Delos without a cloud And this also is enough to answer what follows which is so much out of the way because we cannot find our question in it whether things necessary are plainly contained in Scripture For what is this to it that nothing more clear than that the words of Scripture are capable of severall senses If he means in all Texts he is as easily contradicted nothing more clear than that some words of Scripture are not capable of severall senses If he means of some what is this to the Elench We can say some words are capable of severall senses consistently to this that things necessary are plain And as to his question how shall we infallibly know Gods secret intention in which sense or whether in both he intended them but by an Interpreter having infallible assistance from the same Holy Spirit who assisted those who did write the Scriptures We answer first as before it toucheth not the question unlesse it be applied to words which speak of necessaries to salvation and then we deny it that such texts are so perplexed Secondly some texts we may take in divers senses not contrary Thirdly as he hath not proved to us an infallible Judge so here he doth not prove a need of an infallible Interpreter unlesse he could prove that it is necessary to salvation that we should know the intended sense of every doubtfull passage in Scripture Neither again fourthly for they shall have it toties quoties the definitions of the Councils are some of them ex composito so framed as that we do not clearly see the intention of the Council in what sense or whether in both the words should be taken And must we not then according to my Adversary have another infallible Interpreter of them And if they deliver not the thing clear then another infallible Interpreter of them and if they deliver not the thing clear then another infallible Interpreter of them and so in infinitum And if they say it is not necessary in points of question indubitably to decide in plain terms which part is to be held then we ask why they do not allow a latitude to us since the Council by them is intended for a remedy And therefore need we not again
unto salvation because Timothy as before and also with sufficient plainnesse since the old Testament could do it before the new was consigned but the Scripture taken in complexo doth so Therefore this text is sufficiently full and clear against them And his argument out of this text against me wherein he says he hath a contradictory conclusion against me we will now hear this it is That which in this text is said onely to be profitable for these ends is not thereby said to be sufficient to these ends and yet much lesse sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone but the Scripture in this text is said onely to be profitable to these ends here expressed Ergo Ans The Answer unto this of his may maintains the major of my last Syllogism For thus Estius and my Adversary distinguish upon the major that the Scripture may be profitable and not necessary for these ends and so in effect the Rhemists upon the text that the reading of the Holy Scripture is a great defence and help of the faithfull especially of a Bishop And this is the ground of his Argument We answer therefore first if he means his major thus that what is not said in terms to be so is not said so by consequence neither his minor is not true And if he mean it otherwise it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for we can acknowledge his Conclusion without prejudice to our cause for though it be not said so in terms yet by equivalence and interpretative it is Secondly to the minor we say though it be only said to be profitable yet since it is not said that it is onely profitable it doth not exclude sufficiency that which affirms so much simply doth not simply deny more for then we could no way reconcile divers historicall passages of the Evangelists But that it doth include sufficiency Bellarmin and my Adversary do deny Bellarmin to Chemnitius my Adversary to me Yet Bellarmin stands not so much against the term as if it could not be understood sufficient but contends that the Scripture is not sufficient alone as meat though it be profitable to nutrition yet it is not sufficient alone For if naturall heat be wanting or any other Instrument of the body necessary to nutrition it will not nourish in his fourth B. de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 10. But what is this to the purpose For we doe not maintain the Scripture to be sufficient to salvation alone for there must be faith and repentance and obedience And therefore St. Paul adds upon the place through faith that is in Christ Jesus but we say it is sufficient in suo genere as to direction of us this satisfies our cause If this be confessed we have done As meat is sufficient as to the matter which should nourish so the word of God is sufficient as to the matter of things necessary to be known yea for our comfort too as Isid Clarius upon the text and therefore he says when St. Paul had used many consolations he useth here the greatest For surely it is the most strong consolation to have the Scripture sent from Heaven quae et tantis in tenebris lumen praeferat et gravissima quaeque efficiat ut fiant levia And these comforts he says he did seasonably give him when he was to tell him of the sad news of his departure And as for the word there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we would take aim of the sense by the Syriack since the Greek intimates the Hebrew in the new Testament and the Syriack is called the Hebrew in the new Testament it seems to be so profitable as is sufficient because the word for profitable in the Syriack is taken from a word which signifies to abound and exceed Thirdly although all that is profitable is not sufficient though all that is sufficient is profitable yet that which is profitable ut sic as to perfection seems very sufficient That which helps him to perfection helps him sufficiently quoad hoc as to point of knowledge And if it extends not to sufficencie in the expression the reason may be because other things also are profitable practically And therefore is sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone Because there need not be any controversies necessary to salvation yea rather necessary it is that there should be no Controversies about things necessary to salvation because possibility of error in those things is so dangerous And therefore he supposeth that which is not to be supposed For the man of God may be perfect by Scripture ready furnished to every good work The man of God to wit the Minister So St. Paul of Timothy according to proportion to the Jewish Title but thou man of God flie these things And this we strengthen with St. Crysostom's note upon the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply partaking but with accuratenesse furnished and again before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instead of me thou hast the Scriptures not traditions if you will learn any thing from thence you may so that the Fathers comment imports the Scripture to be sufficient as to learning If any thing else could be pretended as equally profitable then either St. Paul's teaching him but he was to depart and in stead of him he was to have the Scriptures or traditions but he saith not thou hast the word not written but thou hast the Scriptures and that the man of God by the Scripture may be with accuratenesse furnished Therefore untill they can find any thing sufficient without Scripture or any thing necessarily conducing to the sufficiency of Scripture we rest contented with our cause upon account of this text wherein also as usually by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lesse is said more is understood If the Pontificians had such a text for their cause this profitable text would have been made sufficient As for the third answer that St. Paul doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture whence he is most weakly cited to prove that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation We may not say that this is weakly urged For the argument proceeds a fortiori as before If part of the Canon if the old Testament be sufficient then the whole much more And if Traditions were necessary to be added to the old Testament as happily they will say why did God give us the new Testament And to be even with them again when they speak of the Roman Church we might also say this is weakly urged to prove the opinion of the whole Church because they do not speak of the whole Church Again when this is proved it is manifest that part of the whole Canon is lost How then know you the same necessary points not delivered in other parts of Scripture were not delivered in these parts of Scripture which are perished and so are come not to be extant
Yea also so do the Rhemish Translators read it in the Imperative Are they also decived then how shall we be ascertained of the sense of Scripture by Rhemish Interpreters So Ferus also upon the place expounds it to be a direction to the Jews of searching the Scriptures out of a greedinesse to know the truth And again upon the latter words They are they which bear witnesse of me he says that Christ cites no place but speaks in generall tam ut ad quaerendum incitet both that he might incite them to seek And so also Stapleton reads it in his Principia Doctrinalia in the Imperative And also besides not so often do we find a verb of the Indicative mood to begin a sentence But then also fourthly the reason concludes it a duty and the duty concludes a command It concludes a duty thus that which bears witnesse of Christ being in doubt we are bound to search and they bear witnesse of Christ and were then in doubt therefore for that our Saviour should not affirm it but upon their opinion in that he saith for in them ye think to have eternall life is no materiall scruple because the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in other Authors so in Scripture is used by way of elegancie and then our Saviour says himself that they bear witnesse of him and therefore we have in them eternall life Doctrinally And so St. Austin in his 45. serm de verbis Domini says as expounding the place queritis me et non invenietis quare quia non scrutamini Scripturas quae testimonium perhibent de me yee seek me but shall not find me why because you do not search the Scriptures which bear witnesse of me Therefore may we conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is to be taken in the Imperative And therefore his exception that it follows not because they testifie clearly this one point whereof he spake therefore the Scriptures testifie cleerly all that is necessary to be believed in any point of Controversie necessary to salvation that exception falls down before my argument as Dagon before the Ark because it is not only grounded upon this that the Scriptures bear witnesse of him but also in that you think to have in them eternall life And this proposition if there were need we might prove by what was said before that which is able to make us wise unto salvation hath in it eternall life the Scriptures of the old Testament were able to make wise unto salvation therefore they have in them eternall life and by consequent they contain all things necessary to salvation And therefore though this excluded not the hearing of John or Christs Miracles as he would inferr as upon duty yet it excludes them as upon simple necessity to salvation Otherwise those who dyed before Christ and John could not have been saved The force of his ratiocination comes to as much as this as if because one had a great estate he could not live of lesse or as if because he can live of lesse he ought not to follow his calling whereby he may get more This is not the question whether we ought to hear whatsoever God says for this we affirm but this is the question whether it be said because it is necessary or necessary to be heard because it was said the former we deny The necessity was not antecedent to the diction but hearing hath it self to the diction as a necessary consequent So this text is yet good against him Onely he urgeth me with St. Cyrill's opinion of the mood and also Beza's I had thought he would have made no mention any more of any Father of the Church because he says I do not allow infallibility to their testimony It seems their authority must yet be good against us though not for us To Beza's judgement we will oppose quoad hominem the interpretation of the Rhemists and Ferus as before To St. Cyrill's authority we say we can confront it with St. Chrysostom's and yet we do not build upon the mood for the reason binds us Yet because he seems to have his mind turned in better affection to the Fathers it will be reasonable to set down St. Crysostom's words hereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sends them to the Scriptures And again also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And we therefore when we are to fight with Hereticks and are armed against them are strengthned from henee namely from the Scriptures for so it follows in him as a reason for all Scripture is given by inspiration c. Num. 12. Your fourth text is You err not knowing the Scriptures And from hence he demands a Contradictory Conclusion shall it be this Therefore all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Or rather this Therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture For this is the far stronger consequence Ans Indeed he seemed to love rather to baffle his Adversary than to answer him For here again he dislocates my answer that where it was proper it might not be answered and where it is not formally contradictory it may not seem opposite Doth this become men that would lead us the right way by truth to happinesse The citation of this text comes in to give him satisfaction unto his argument that if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge in all Controversies he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly this importing so exceedingly as it doth and yet he hath not done so To this I said we answer Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures in that he saith ye err not knowing the Scriptures and also adding the other text to Timothy All Scripture is given by inspiration and also 2. Ep. Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of Prophecy thus I said and also allowed him the use of externall Judges without necessity of infallibility and also I retorted his argument If Christ had intended the Church should have been the infallible Judge it importing so exceedingly he would have told us so clearly which he hath not done c. Now if all my texts be able to give a full account of our being obliged to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge externall it is enough for me and my purpose to which I used them but he cunningly draws that text from the proper use and shews it here not to be fit for a contradiction to that which formally is another question than that to which it was applyed but let these tricks go I will now take the texts together and from thence conclude contradictorily to the present question Whether all things necessary to salvation be plainly set down in Scripture thus If we be referred to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge then the Scripture doth plainly set down
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
and consequently hope too Yet we may hope to make his charge nought and our faith good but we need not say any more than what hath been said whereunto he hath said as much as comes to little yet now he diverts hither We must say therefore again that this should not be a question betwixt us how we believe the Scriptures to be the word of God for this is supposed betwixt us as the subject of the question And we say that the sense of this argumentation is to as much purpose as if when we are at London we must go back again because we did not go the new way As to the Assumption then we deny it We do ground our assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation Yea moreover we return him his argument in terms and therefore they have no Divine faith so naturall it is for those to speak most who have a mind to cover their own defects They cannot ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation because they ground it upon the authority of the Church for they must either have an immediate revelation that the Church is infallible or else they must ground it upon the general sum of revealed truth and that is the Scripture for as for Tradition that which is of a particular Church is of no weight as to this businesse and universall Tradition must go upon account of the Church now then if they say that they have a Revelation immediate that the Church is infallible in proposing those books to be Canonical they make that to be of use to them which they deny to us who have as good reason to say that we may as well have an immediate revelation that the Scripture is the word of God but if they ground their faith upon some texts of Scripture which concern the Church then they must believe the Scripture for it self So then either they must come to us or else indeed they have no Divine faith And therefore had he no cause to be offended with that I said that the Canonical books are worthy to be believed for themselves as we assent to prime principles in the habit of Intelligence To this he says in a parenthesis And so is the book of Toby and Judith as well as these But doth he say this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth he not then find fault with the antient Church who did not as hath been shewn give equall reverence to these as to the books Canonical If they be as worthy to be believed as the books Canonical then they erred in not receiving them with equall belief And if they erred then our Adversaries are lost And now as for our assent to the Canonicall books in the manner of assent to prime principles by the help of the Spirit of God they are not like to prosper in the abuse of it First it is to be noted that we are not now to deal with one that denies the Scripture to be the word of God for to an unbeliever hereof we should use other arguments rationally to induce him to a good opinion hereof but when we are demanded by a Christian what is it that grounds our faith of Scripture one would think we might say that we are resolved to a Divine faith hereof by the Spirit of God disposing our assent to them as of themselves worthy to be believed which is the reason of assent to prime principles And therefore secondly we do not say that our assent to the Canonical books is by a naturall light as our assent to prime principles but that our assent is made to them by way of Intelligence through the Spirit the light of the Spirit as to shew us the Scripture to be worthie of belief for it selfe is supernaturall but when that comes we believe it as we do prime principles not by discourse but because it is credible of it self Faith herein bears more proportion to intelligence than to science because we do not in faith use a reason to the act as we do in science And this is intimated in the common reading of that text of the Prophet Si non crediderint non intelligent if they will not believe they shall not understand so then since faith is a supernaturall habit as the School-men the Spirit of God doth infuse it into us as being an habit infused as they speak and this doth dispose us to believe the Scripture to be the word of God as by him indited And one would think that it is a better ground to believe it to be the word of God because he saith so than to believe it because the Church saith so and it is more about because I cannot believe it upon the account of the Church but because God gives testimony of the Church and why cannot we then believe God teste seipso So all the assent we give to them is made upon the veracity of God which is the center in which all lines of Scripture do meet and terminate Therefore might he have spared that which follows Have you brought all the infallibility of Christian Religion unto this last ground to be trampled by the Socinians Ans First I do not see what reason we have to lay the foundation of Religion so as to please the Socinian One who maintained the Protestant cause was prejudiced by suspition of being inclined to Socinianism and I am now found fault with for not providing for their satisfaction in our principles Well but secondly I do not finde that Socinians do abhor this tenure of Scripture And thirdly they to be sure do trample upon the authority of their Church as infallible And therefore this is to be returned home to the Romanist And also upon the former grounds might he have omitted what follows from doe you expect unto all that you believe for although the object is to be believed for it self as a prime principle yet is there not a naturall light for it that comes supernaturally and therefore faith is a supernatural habit But if they would be accounted such rationall men in the faith of Scripture they do deserve from the Socinian a negative reverence by a positive favour to them But again how far is that which I have said different from the determination of Ratisbon in their fourth session Scripturae dicuntur perfectae quoad perfectionem eredibilitatis et exactissimae veritatis The Scriptures are said perfect as in respect of the perfection of credibility and most exact truth And the perfection of credibility belongs to the first principles which are indemonstrable And as those principles have themselves immobiliter unto Sciences as Aquinas so the Scriptures have themselves unto Divinity Here we must rest And if every one doth not believe them to be the word of God upon this account this doth not derogate from the credibility of the object thus we say that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God is evident of its own self needing no further proof for the requiring
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
humane judicatories have their use without infalliblity he toucheth not My fourth he toucheth in the next paragr Par. 57. In this number he seems if I may think so to be a litle hooked and with more line to be more snarled There must stick upon the Church Roman a censure either of fallibility or unfaithfulness Thus it is they say the Scripture is not our guide sufficiently because it doth not decide controversies we return it to them that upon the same account the Church Roman is not because it doth not decide whatsoever is necessary to be believed by a full Catholique in their sense And for instance whether the Pope hath a temporal power or not if temporal whether directly as the Canonists or propter bonum spirituale as others then whether the Pope be superiour to a Council in things Ecclesiastical To these he gives me no positive account and yet are these points Cardines mundi ecclesiae the main points upon which the Church and world with them must turne Do they tell us that it is a necessary point know whether the king be head of the Church and is it not as necessary for them to know whether the Pope be head of the Church But we must consider his apology Our doctrine is that the Church can decide any point formerly revealed when any necessity shall require it or the declaration of this point concerne salvation Ans what worke would some adversary have made him for such a return The charge against Scripture was that it cannot end all necessary controversies I recriminate neither doth their Church They reply the Church can I reioyn first here they vary I said their Church they say the Church as if they would not own the Church of Rome in its catholickness 2. They say it can But if it can and will not I am yet to seek for my trust and as St. Ierom said to the Pelagians about the possibility of the law how shall we think that possible which was never done if it cannot how is it infallible in all points if it will not how is it faithfull if it can let it do so and then let them object our differences to us and the inability of Scripture to end them 3. He saies the Church can decide any point formerly revealed what meanes he by this if formerly revealed then what need of a judge for it and then the most they can do is to declare and so may another Church and that not necessary neither if it were formerly revealed Well then Are these points revealed or not if they be not revealed then by their own confession they cannot decide them And if they be formerly revealed what need to be decided but but 4. When any necessity shall require c. But let me know why when such a thing is proposed by the Church it is a fundamental and a necessary point to be believed and yet somewhat is necessary to be believed and yet not decided by the Church As for instance it is necessary to be believed that the Pope is head of the Church for so Bellarmin defines a Christian with subjection to the Pope as head of the Church in his Catechism And yet it seemes this is not decided by the Church because then it is decided whether he be supreme in Ecclesiasticals So then the definition of the Church cannot be the adaequate reason of our faith because somewhat is necessary to be believed which is not decided and yet again if somewhat be necessary to be believed then by my adversaries confession it ought to be declared because it doth concern our salvation And since the Church is to act not ex arbitrio but ex officio how can it else clear it self of the bloud of all men as St. Paul doth Acts 20.27 when it doth not declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole counsel of God And if they take counsel here in their sense we can make use of it to them thus that if he declared all counsels then much more necessary doctrine because counsels according to them are not simply necessary but yet it cannot be taken in their sense because he dischargeth himselfe hereby of the bloud of all men and therefore must it be meant of what was necessary to their salvation simply as counsels they say are not So then he thinks it the best way to pitch upon the negative and to say Salvation hath very securely been had without the decision of these points you speak of If Circumstances happen that salvation cannot be had without their decision they will then be decided Ans first then let there be a defalcation and discounting of one point from the number of those which are accounted by them to us necessary which the Scripture hath not decided and that is whether the King be head of the Church for surely there is as much reason of necessity to salvation for them to know whether the Pope be head of the Church as for us to know whether the King be head and more too since infallibility is annexed to their head 2. If Salvation may be had without an assurance in those points then how shall we be bound to the Trent Council in beliefe of the Roman Church to be the Apostolick Church without which no salvation when yet we need not know who is supreme in that Church Take it in this forme subjection to the universal Church is necessary to salvation the Roman Church is not universal unles he be head therefore unles he be head of the Church subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation And then Conclamatum est And if Circumstances according to him can bring these points under a necessity of decision then it seems they are but indifferent ex naturâ rei for circumstances are only considerable in case of indifferency And then by the virtue of the former discourse it is indifferent to salvation whether we be subject to the Roman Church or not And so might we end the business But he goes on if you acknowledge a reall necessity to be at all times of the infallible knowledge of these points Ans He doth not take notice that I dispute with him upon his own principles by which he he is bound to shew that the Church hath defined these points since he saies the Scripture hath not decided all necessary points but hath referred us to the Church for their decision Now then since these points are not necessary to us but to them who have that opinion of the Roman Church it belongs to them to shew the Church's decision of these points And therefore if they believe all Scripture and therefore these if they be determined there this will not serve them though it is enough for us because what the Scripture doth not clearly define they say the Church by Scripture is deputed to And if the Church hath not done it though they know the way to Rome they do not know the way to
have been damned notwithstanding absolute necessity knowes no dispensations But therefore he produceth a Text for absolute necessity St. Iohn the 3.5 Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of heaven Ans If we compare this verse with the third we need not make any other construction then of a necessity of being born from above Neither is it likely that Christ would have spoken no otherwise to Nicodemus of baptism had he meant it so And Ferus though he speaks of this sense ad literam yet hath he other senses thereof And if it be compared with the other Text St. Matthew 3.11 you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire as that Text is to be understood by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so may this also notwithstanding the order of the words But 2. Dato non concesso that it is to be understood of Baptismal water yet the Rhemists upon the place do confess that in two cases Baptismal water is not necessary Namely in the case of martyrdome and if they have a desire of it but are prevented necessarily by death And the reason thereof is sufficient because God hath not bound his grace in respect of his own freedome to the Sacraments and so Ferus upon the place Deus enim non alligavit potentiam suam Sacramentis c. God hath not tied his own power to the Sacraments By his ordinate will indeed he gives grace by the Sacraments But nevertheles he can give it without the Sacrament Let them then tell me why Infants may not have rem Sacramenti without the seale as if God should have no favour for Infants because they cannot be qualified for the priviledge Let then the Rhemists and Ferus be compurgators for the pernicious doctrine of mine as he calls it And now whatsoever testimony he produceth of the necessity of baptism unles St. Austin's as to Infants they will stand very well with my termes in their ordinary sense which doth not contradict an ordinary necessity of it to Infants but again that all the Fathers were of this opinion I can deny I except Tertullian And St. Austin for those of age holdes but an ordinary necessity as appears in his 4. b. De Bapt. Contra Donat. 23. ch This ordinary necessity I stand for He himself intends no more by his testimonies Dr. Tayler's and others and therefore he absolves me himself but I cannot absolve him from ignorance in the Elench This doth not contradict me who do dispute now against an absolute necessity which he must maintain or else in this he comes short of his design And also that that allowance of baptism of Infants after it be done doth not inferre an absolute necessity of their being damned in the judgment of the Fathers if they were not Baptized if they will take Mr. Hookers opinion for all let them consult him in his 5. b. 33. p. where he saith I know there are many sentences found in the books and writings of the antient Fathers to prove both Ecclessiastical and Moral defects in the Ministers of Baptism a bar to the heavenly benefit thereof Now in Lay-men I trow there are Ecclesiastical defects for there is a defect in not being Ecclesiastical And therefore whether others mistake the Fathers either in the point of fact or in the reason of that allowance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he gives me a Syllogism which we will not neglect because it is very rare with him He disputes upon my distinction of necessity thus This precept is necessarily to be fulfilled this precept is not plainly set down in Scripture therefore all necessary points are not plainly set down in Scripture This hath the face but not the form of a Syllogism But to pass that we answer therefore that this Syllogism doth not conclude contradictorily to the state of the question which is whether all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Now all that is necessary to be done is larger then all that is necessary to be done unto Salvation Though all things necessary to be done unto Salvation are necessary to be done yet all that is necessary to be done is not necessary to be done unto Salvation The former are necessary necessitate medii the latter necessitate praecepti Now the knowledg of the former is simply necessary the knowledg of the latter is not so necessary Whatsoever is known to be praecepted is to be necessarily done but whatsoever is praecepted is not necessary to be known So that also his Syllogism was peccant in the fallacie of the consequent He followes me then your Answer will not helpe you out here whatsoever is necessarily inferred from the Scriptures is binding in the vertue of the principles why so because he saies because you cannot shew that this precept given to the parents is necessarily inferred out of Scripture So now he is upon the minor of the former Syllogism he would then prove it by a negative Induction Not out of the Institution of our Saviour for he also instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist not necessary for Infants Ans first this is no argument it doth not follow from the denial of one species to another because he did not institute the Eucharist as necessary for infants threfore he did not institute the Sacrament of baptism as necessary for Infants 2. they know there is not the same reason for the Institution of the Eucharist for Infants as for the Institution of baptism For this is administred to the child without its own faith the other is administred upon faith to confirmation 3. If they will be ruled by tradition and the authority of the Church the Eucharist was accounted also as necessary for Infants Now that tradition came from Christ as his institution or not if it did then there is some reason for baptism to Infants if not how shall we believe tradition or the authority of the Church He proceeds not out of substitution to Circumcision for so it should not be necessary to women To be even with them The high Priest was only of males the Pope succeeds the high Priest therefore the Popedome was not competible to Ioane some of them would fain have somewhat for woman to be proportionable to Circumcision of males towards the taking away of original sinne which should be an object of tradition But as the unmarried was included in the parent so the woman included under her husband as to this Yet such another argument we have then it should be necessary only for those of the Iewish nation As if Circumcision was inioyned to the Iew upon the quatenus of the nation and not as they were members of the Church under the same Covenant with Christians as to the substance thereof and therefore Eusebius saies of some of those under the law that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were reall Christians or in
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
as the Hebrew doth and also the Greek and the Latin which two want not the Subjunctive Mood Ans But first he supposeth that which is in question that the Hebrew is to be understood as in the future Secondly other translations with him are fallible save only the Latin therefore the other conclude not Thirdly the translations may be understood in compliance with the Hebrew which is frequent also in the New Testament with the Greek and therefore if the Hebrew may be so construed so may the others by an Hebraism Therefore if our English translation were faulty herein yet must it be otherwise convinced of a fault in this Especially since Fourthly We give good reason why it should thus be construed namely by the Scope Intelligentia dicti sumitur ex scopo loquendi And therefore may we well with Iunius and Tremellius hold our English which in general whatsoever he saies of it from some of our own hath not so many faults in it as Isidor Clarius found in their Latin 8000. I asked him is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome He saies I told you it was not But why then should the other Text about the Scribes and Pharisees by proportion prove their infallibility and not this since we have here the Priest in a singularity if not signanter Well then by his own consent this Text is not sufficient for him for it concerns private Priests and they are as fallible as translations Onely the private Priests may know the sense of the Church better then the sense of Scripture by the translations as he speaks in more words to no more purpose Ans First when we have the sense of the Church are we sure that that sense is true though it be the true sense of the Church is the sense of the Church true this is yet in question There is no question but the sense of Scripture is true whether the sense of the Church is true is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Let the plain places of Scripture in things necessary be compared with the difficulties in the Interpretation of the Trental Definitions and then let them judge whether we had not better stand to Translations which are made by a Nation or approved or else to the opinion of private Priests for though her Doctrine be so carefully published amongst all intelligent men yet this is to be understood materially in the words not formally in the sense And so the Scripture is published amongst all intelligent men in the former way And if the people be not intelligent men too how shall they know whether the true sense of the Doctrine of the Church be communicated to them by learned men But the Priests of the old Law were to direct the people which were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures And the Priests of the new Law doubtless excel those of the old Law This in the substance of it we have had before and have taken away the grounds thereof And besides it is false that the people were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures What saith St. Luke of the Bereans If they examined by the Scriptures what Doctrine St. Paul taught were not they to be directed by their own readings of the Scripture And why did the Jews apply their children to the Law from five years of age And why did St. Paul take notice of Timothy to be trained up in the Scriptures from his childhood and why is the man said to be blessed who amongst other things meditates in the Law day and night Is this to be understood onely of the Priests 2. Therefore though they went to the Priests in doubtful cases yet not for ordinary knowledg in things necessary therefore this is not compared ad idem to our case Thirdly the Priests were bound to direct the people by the Law were they not To the Law and to the Testimonies And not by Tradition So are the Priests of the new Law as he calls them to direct the people by the Scripture not by Tradition or determinations of the Church unless according to Scripture Therefore his question of the case in a matter of doubt which he compares his proceeding in with the old way of the Jews Numb 6. comes not home to our business and therefore we may send it home again and yet not for fear of not being able to answer what he is not willing to urge that when in the upshot the question should be drawn up to the High Priest he who would not hear him was deservedly put to death Deut. 17. He leaves this for us to take down our selves he will not apply it and herein he does discreetly fearing it may be least it should be said that that which he would seem to have referred to the High Priest for final judgment should indeed be referred to the Judge contradistinctly spoken of and by the Syriack disjunctively to the Priests and Levits And 2. I hope the High Priest at Rome doth not undertake a sentence in causes of blood And thirdly in that case there was contempt thou shalt take away the evil it is not said errour and analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori analogato and also ver 12. this is intimated that man that will do presumptuously Fourthly Suppose it had been referred to the High Priest for sentence final this might be extraordinary in a Typical respect to Christ And they know the rule Extraordinaria non trahuntur in regulam We cannot make a rule of extraordinaries And yet also was not the High Priest quatenus talis Infallible as appears in the condemnation of Christ as I told them Now he would distinguish by saying The Jewish Church erred not The true High Priest without whom there is no true representative Church erred not Cajaphas was not the true High Priest the other true High Priest was Christ Prety sport So the Roman Church never erreth because Christ is the true Head but then the Pope should not be true High Priest nor true Head for so Caiaphas and he must be compared in relation to Christ May we not almost think that our Adversary is within a little put to his shifts For Christ was in being I hope and had declared himself the true Messias and yet he said the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair then we are bound to do all whatsoever is said to us without a true High Priest 2. How many Popes were not true Popes and so not true High Priests and then when shall we be certain whether we have a true High Priest and consequently a true Church and consequently that it cannot erre For as absolute infallibility hath it self to particular Faith in any point according to Mr. Knot So absolute certainty of a true Pope hath it self to our knowledg whether it cannot erre Well but he hath told us that he is the true Pope whom the Church shall accept So before but then Caiaphas was the
teaching them what the universal Church holds to be Gods Law than by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be Gods law as you would have them do Ans This doth not contradict If they say it is more likely we can say it But what is this to Faith And upon this condition they are undone For which of their private Priests are able to say positively that this is the doctrine of the whole Church for all ages and places since the Apostles The Church otherwise considered hath no considerable Authority and so we mean the universal Church Secondly Although thus the Church is not the regula regulans but the regula regulata yet they cannot bring the consent of the universal Church for the points of difference Ad num 11. 12. 13. 14. Herein he gives me many words towards asserting Tradition to be a sufficient bottom of faith but in all these how little he takes away of my answer any one may say better then I. In the beginning of the eleventh he goes upon a false supposition that in the times before Moses the traditions were received by the Church upon the infallibility of the Church They were received by the Church not infallibly by the Church The Church had it self herein as a mean of proposall not as the last motive of faith Their faith was terminated by the spirit of God in the matter of tradition was not determined by the Church's Authoritative delivery the objectum quod of their faith was not the Churches proposal Then 2. supposing what we do not grant yet there is not now the same reason for the Church because they had more appearances tâ—en of God to and in the Church then now there is or hath been since the Apostles times And therefore the rule is good Distingue tempora 3. This will make a circle How were they assured infallibly of tradition by the Church How were they infallibly assured of the Church by tradition then the resolution of their faith was not into the credit of the Church as infallible Therefore doth my Antagonist in vain say to me shew the ground they had there to hold the Church infallible Nay the proofe hereof must come from the affirmer Asserentis est probare They are to make good here two things first that they did hold their Church infallible otherwise how could any of the people hold it to be infallible unles the Church did so determin of iâ— selfe and then that though they did hold it to be infallible yet that it was so and must be so otherwise they could not believe anything Afterwards he makes a perâ—triction of my distinction that the word in substance of it was before the Church which was begotten by it and then he tells me what I adde thereunto that when there is as much need and as great a certainty of tradition as formerly then he may urge the argument Here he shifts and shuffles He tell me that I must understand it of the unwritten word and to be only in orall â—radition Right I understand it so But what is this to 〈◊〉 question whether the manner of conveyance by tâ—e 〈◊〉 in way of orall tradition was infallible and then whether we are bound to take all or part of necessary doctrine from the Church this way And can they now conclude the Church infallible in the matter of tradition besâ—ide the word written by their tradition of the word unwritten And can they shew that the Iews were equally bound to any Tradition before the word written which was not agreable to the word afterwards written Otherwise how can they supply this to their purpose in urging Traditions differing from Scripture in matter equally to Scripture as the Trent Council defines as before Let them come to the point and satisfie demands In his discourse following I can grant him all untill he come to this they only had Gods word revealed by tradition This we must debate upon as being ambiguously delivered for only may relate to the subject they and so the sense is the Iewes only had Gods word revealed by Tradition but this is concerned here or only may have relation to Gods word as to the matter which was revealed and so the sense is that they had only that word which was revealed by tradition and this comes not to the point neither or only may relate to the manner of revealing by tradition and thus indeed it is proper for the debate but thus it is denied if we take it thus that the word of God was no otherwise assured to them than by tradition though they onely being Jews had onely that word of God which was revealed by tradition to believe yet had they not only tradition by which they did beleeve And therefore his conclusion must be naught and all he saies to that purpose even to the end of his Paragraph In the twelfth he deales about the need of tradition and he saies that the need or necessity of Tradition which you conceive to have been greater then than now doth not make the Traditions more Credible Ans True it is that simply the need of them doth not make them to be more credible if they be to be believed but there is the question whether there is now any to be believed necessarily in point of faith when there is not such need of them Scripture is as credible when we are heaven in regard of it self yet there we have no need of it but as since we have no need of it there we have reason to believe that there it will not take place so neither should Traditions when there is not that need of them My answer then did bear it self upon this that if there were that necessity of Tradition now as then he might urge the argument because God have would provided sufficiently for security of tradition now as then falsum prius And we may take his own similitude those that have read many credible books of France have they any need of orall Tradition to believe that there is such a Kingdome as France he saies no yet these last are as certain he saies Well then no more need have we of tradition for the doctrine of Christ which we sufficiently read in Scripture So then although he concludes Traditions hopefull and superflua non nocent yet can he not conclude them as necessary which should have been demonstrated But this he would doe in following words even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions we have ever had with them a perpetual succession of horrible Divisions opening still wider and wider Again odd reflexions upon Scripture but it is well he jopnes Traditions with it to take part of the consequence as he thinks and yet it may be he does not think so but that the cause of the Divisions is only Scripture and had we had no Scriptures we should have had fewer Divisions Doth he think so Then how is Scripture necessary as they generally confesse when it
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
thus whatsoever requires infallible assent must have an infallible Authority Diverss points not proposed clearly in Scripture the Church requires an infallible assent to therefore she must have infallible Authority we answer granting the major which yet they have no reason to urge unless they had more firm Principles that the assumption may be true de facto but not de jure And then again It is yet denied that ever the Church Universal did ever exact this As to the right hereof she must prove her infallibility and Authority too hereunto as to the fact it must be proved by our Adversaries Therefore since I am respondent I may conclude thus Things necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture those points are not plainly set down in Scripture saies he therefore I conclude they are not necessary Here he makes a return to my Argument against him N. 18. that if that must be Judge which can hear him and me and be heard by him and me then Tradition is thus excluded from being the Judge here he distinguisheth It is the Church who proposeth these Traditions and not the Traditions which are our judge Ans This is easily taken away for according to their Principles Tradition must be Judge of the Church If their former Argument be good that we must not ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Scripture because we do not know what is Scripture but by the Church so also we cannot ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Church because we cannot tell which is the Church but by Tradition And if it be Judge of the Scripture in the Canon of it as they must say then surely it may be Judge of the Church because as before by the Fathers opinion the Church must be proved by Scripture Again by Tradition was the Faith of Christian Doctrine bred in the minds of the Barbarian Nations as we have it said before by my Adversary therefore Tradition must be the infallible Judge or else they had not the same Faith which the Roman contends for by an infallible Judge or if they had then there are more infallible Judges or Faith may be had without an infallible Judge or Traditions and the Church are all one and then the distinction is none And yet also this answer of his I did provide for before in these words but you say the Church doth determine hereby by Tradition then may it determin by Scripture more securely and more universally And to this he replies nothing but holds the conclusion From hence he skips to answer me about that which I opposed to his Judge exclusively to any other I urged that of St. Paul that an heretick is condemned by himself namely as I discoursed by the Law of God within him by vertue of Conscience which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemnation of errour in us c. To this he saies he is not an heretick but an infidel who is told by his own Conscience that he gain-saith the Scripture Ans First Then the Scriptures are so clearly the Word of God that an Infidel may be told thereof by his own Conscience If not so then his words have no sense If so then may we see the Scripture to be the Word of God by its own light as the Heathens did the Law of nature and then he contradicts his own former discourse Secondly Saint Paul speaks not of an Infidel but in terminis terminantibus of an heretick who supposeth the Scriptures to be the Word of God though by consequence he denies it in Hypothesie as to the point of heresie So that the Text cannot be so put off And though every Christian is readier to die than to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture yet the heretick who supposeth the Scripture in Thesi and in general may yet deny it in the application against him and for this he is to be rejected because he goeth against his own Principles of Scripture which do condemn his heresie in his own conscience though outwardly he opposeth And he helps his cause no better with another shift When St. Paul wrote those words the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written and until the whole Canon was written your own Doctors grant the Church to have been the infallible judge of controversies Ans If he takes whole so as to be understood in order to the Canon I grant that the whole Canon was not then written but if he takes it in opposition to a sufficient direction by what was then written I deny it there was then as much written as was simply necessary to Salvation for how could St. Paul otherwise say to Tim. That the Scriptures then were able to make him wise unto Salvation thus I distinguish of the former part but then 2. the latter I doe deny that our awn Doctours do say that the Church was the infallible Judge of controversies until the whole Canon of the Scriptures was written for then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Pharises had been infallible No the word of God was infallible when it was not written but not the Church Therefore he mistakes the purport of finishing the Canon which was not ever held by us to cease the infallibility of the Church but to accomplish the matter of Scripture and so it doth exclude verbum non Scriptum Infallibility of the Church was never held but the Canon of Scripture was allwaies sufficient providing allwaies that the Church in this consideration be meant contradistinctly to the writers of Scripture Neither needs he to wonder at my saying that the Church then was not sufficiently formed thereunto namely to a definition of what was to be held therein To this he saies the Church was formed before St Pauls conversion and before his conversion the number of Desciples was multiplied Ans The terme Church is very ambiguous He takes it here of the Church vertual or of the Church representative or of the Church diffusive The Church vertual which the Iesuits say is the Pope was not yet formed The Church Representative as they say in a Council confirmed by the Pope was not yet formed There was no council General till after three hundred yeares nor Pope so soon in their sense A Church diffusive there was but this serves not his turn for we must speake of such a Church formed so that the heretique should be condemned for contradicting the definition of the Church Now the definition of the Church according to my Adversary is by the Church Representative and this was not then formed Then again to take his own words either the Church was not then formed most compleatly with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith or it was Let them now say which they will Then no necessity of Pope and Council yea no necessity of Pope or Council If it was not compleatly formed then my former answer obtains And besides if
namely by the Emperours without any contradiction of Councils Did the Nicene Council question Constantines authority to call Councils whether it was Divine or not How many humble expressions and actions of respect and subjection did come from the Councils and the Fathers which are not indeed suitable to the deportment of that Pope who trod upon the neck of Frederick the Emperour or of him that threw the Duke of Venice under his table with the dogs The competition then betwixt Emperours and Popes in point of Ecclesiastique authority as to the outward part of Religion will come to this No institution of Popes in their sense by Scripture There is under an Evangelicall promise an apopintment of kings to be nursing Fathers and of Queens to be nursing Mothers And in triumphum we might compare them as to the practice of the primitive times there was calling of Generall Councils by Emperours none by Popes till they usurped Therefore Ocham to the King may end it Tu me defende gladio ego te defendam verbo do you defend me with the Sword I will defeind you with the word This to his first answer Secondly as for the Praelates of the Church we can shew Divine institution Actes 20.28 Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock to feed or govern the Church of God And Ephes. 4. Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the worke of the ministry c. Ans First I think that the adversaries living would goe near to starve if they would eate nothing before they proved that feeding there should be understood of governing as it must be unless he spoke in a proper disjunctiveness when he said feed or govern and if so he gives us leave to take it not for him who must get out of it the sense of governing this indeed is laboured by Bellarmin specially and he contests much for it with Luther in his first b. de Rom. Pontif. 15. ch Upon that which is said to St. Peter by Christ feed my sheep His argument is from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sometimes signifies to rule right but it doth not follow that it should therefore signifie so there upon the 21. of St. Iohn we may therefore confront him with a stronger argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is twice used there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to rule therefore we should rather expound the other word by these then by it self And as for his instance out of the second Ps 9. ver where he would have the Hebrew to bear the same sense he is mistaken or worse as I think I have noted before for the Hebrew word there doth not at all signifie to feed but to break it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Ben Israels edition And by others though it be not read with a Vau yet there is a cholem and Montanus renders it conteres thou shalt break So then as to the former Text Acts 20.28 It can no way be proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is to be construed to rule which is only to their purpose Yea Montanus and the Translation of the Syriack and of the Arabick and of the Aethiopick render it not by regere but by pascere Yea 2. Suppose that the word therefore doth signifie to govern yet doth it not therfore follow that the Text should be understood of Bishops of proper name but may be understood of simple Presbyters and without any derogation to Episcopal government because they have a power under the Bishops to rule their particular Churches namely their particular flocks although they have no power over the other pastours as the Bishops have who succeedeb the Apostles in the point of government as St. Ierom speaks in his Epistle to Evagrius 3. Suppose the verbe be to be understood of ruling and suppose that Text to mean as some proper Bishops taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an higer notion yet my Adversaries will be yet disappointed of their end by that Text because we have found Divine institution of Kings and we cannot find in this Text an institution of Bishops to be above them in calling of Councils and ordering the outward part of the Church Yea 4. if that Text doth intend a power in them by the Holy Ghost of calling Councils then for ought I see the power must be primarily subjected in them and not in the Pope and therefore he must not be the chief pastour and Head of the Church which contradicts them if then they intend by the Text a proof of such a Divine institution of Praelates to govern the Church as to call Councils thereby this derogates from the Pope And if they intend not such a power to be given to the Praelates as to call Councils how doth this prove that the Pope is to call Councils from this Text Yea how do they prove that Kings or Emperours are not to call Councils for though Praelats are to govern the Church Yet Kings or Emperours might call Councils these are not opposits but agreeable because the Praelats may govern in sacris the Kings or Emperours circa sacra The speculative decision is to be by the Praelats the outward administration by the Emperours The potestas in actu signato in them in actu exercito in the Emperours And as for the other Text Eph. 4. We need say nothing or only this that the not naming of Lay Magistrates there doth not exclude them else where Doth it If it does not where is their argument If it doth then by the same law of consequence there are no Praelats to have any Divine Authority for the good of the Church because where it is said Kings shall be the nursing Fathers and Queens the nursing Mothers there is no mention of Ecclesiastical Praelats So then let them speak no more of the Fathers of the Church And then 2. This comes not to the point of the question that Lay Magistrates are not here spoken of but only Ecclesiasticall are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministry for to the work of the ministry no man asserts the power of a Lay magistrate but external government is contradistiguished to the work of the ministry which consists in ministerial acts Yea 3. Is that Text to be understood of government of the Church If it be not then it is impertinently produced If it be then by his former argument the Pope is excluded because here is no mention of any appointment of him sub ratione singulritatis and in way of eminencie nay not of any priority and therefore he by this account in all his Pontificalaibus is but an human Creature Therefore upon the account of the Text we will stand our ground and not be carried about with every wind of doctrine Thirdly the Emperour is not by Divine institution Lord of the
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
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
sense 4. The end of Pastours then was the end of Pastours now to be preserved by infallibility of Pastours then was not the end of Pastours then therefore not now The major is true by them because they apply those words to these times of the Church the minor is also true by them because there was not by their own confession Councils held for the first three hundred yeares The assistance therefore is not such as preserves from all errour And lastly if we were to be preserved from errour by the unanimous doctrine of those Doctours and Pastours we should never be secured from errour unless in those points wherein we agree N. 32. In this number he brings Es 59.20.1 Compared with the 11. ch to the Rom. 26. ver Ans These Texts neither disjunctively nor conjunctively are sufficient for his intendment That of Esay is plainly intended for the last conversion of the Jew which is not like to be made by Roman meanes as Sr. Edwin Sandys notes in his Survey of the westerne Churches And as for those wordes my words which I have put into thy mouth are free from errour in all points great and small yes we grant it This doth not contradict us but they are to prove that whatsoever they say God puts into their mouth Again it respects the Church as invisible and that conceit of his that it cannot be so taken because it speaks of the words not departing out of the mouth is not solid for the use of the mouth may be there for confession of the faith as Rom. 10.10 with the mouth confession is made to God Now this respects not the visible Church as teaching but the invisible as expressing the faith of the heart by the confession of the mouth But he again Gods spirit or word is not in a mouâ—h teaching errour Ans This is a Sophism it is true in sensu composito and as teaching errour but it is not true in sensu diviso Gods spirit may be in one at one time teaching truth in another time not teaching or teaching not truth He may be in some directing sufficiently to salvation not sufficiently against all errour not that the Spirit of God is in any teaching errour operatively for whatsoever it is he is operative to in point of beliefe is truth but in whom he may be sometimes as teaching truth he is sometimes not when they teach errour For this si yet to be proved by them that whatsoever is taught in the Church is suggested and dictated by the Spirit Afterwards he taxeth me for taxing any of coming near to blasphemy for saying God did speak to us and teach us by his Church which he saies here is refuted my words shall not depart out of thy mouth Ans I said not so That which I said I have answered upon the place I do not not deny absolutly that God speakes by his Church but I deny that he speaks now by his Church absolutely God may speak by his Church that which is infallible and yet not speak by his Church now infallibly That which is infallible in the principles of Scripture not infallibly in the manner of deduction If he did speak allwaies and allwaies infallibly there were no more to be said until that be proved we say much is supposed N. 33. If it were lawfull I might smile at his discourse in this number out of the next ch in Esay and the next to that For these chapters do plainly regard the Church as invisible in order to salvation which is properly applied to the Church as such and this is more then truth for it is possible for a man not to have any errrour and yet not to come to Salvation and it is I hope possible for a man to come to Salvation and yet to have some errours But that this should be said of the Roman Church and that that should teach all Nations I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was not the Church of Ierusalem and the Church of Antioch before them Nay it will not be easily proved by them that they were Christians in a formed Church before us We may as well say that the multitude of the Isles shall be glad thereof and that all Nations and Kingdomes which shall not serve thee shall perish should be meant of the Church of Rome is as likely as that the Bishop of Rome should be Emperour of the world as they pretend him Monarch of the Church It was never true surely but then when the Emperours held the Popes stirrup and the Duke was throwen under the Table Or it was then true when the Pope was the Sun and Emperour the Moon Or it shall then be true when the Sun riseth in the west But it should not be true of Rome me thinks because it is said the dayes of thy mourning shall be ended And surely they have been since the prophecy sometimes in mourning and at least shall be by their own acknowledgment in the time of Anti-Christ And that this should be meant of the Church as visible because it is said thou shalt be called Sought out is a slight ratiocination Rather the contrary because God seeks it out therefore it is not visible Because it is called Hephtziba my delight is in her therefore visible Yea rather the contrary for Gods delight is with the Church invisible because when his delight is with the Church visible it is in order to the Church invisible Because the land shall be called Beulah Ch. 62 ver 4 therefore it should be the Church visible rather the contrary for the real union which is mystical of Christ with his Church is to be understood of the Church invisible And that she should be to Gods comfort namely the visible and the Roman Church rather the contrary she is certainly less to his comfort because she saies so These promises are made primarily to the Church as invisible which should be gathered cheifely out of the Gentiles in general therefore let them again remember that of St. Ierom in his Epistle to Evagrius Orbis maior est Urbe But he helpeth us with an argument If this Church should at any time fall to teach errour Nations should do well to further their Salvation by forsaking her erring as the Protestants say they did This we take for the maior and we assume but this Church hath erred as hath been sufficiently shewed in the discourse of others and competently in this therefore are we justified by my adversaries And amongst the errours quod loquitur inde est that she cannot erre N. 34. In this he obtrudes again that of Dan. 2.44 And they must be meant he thinks of the Church of the Church visible of the visible Roman Church certaintly it was well said by the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we may go near to English thus modesty is unprofitable to him that beggs the question That it is meant of the Kingdome of Christ in his Church we
Faith in the Gospel And this is illustrated by the Samaritanes beleeving Christ through the testimony of the woman but when they came to Christ and saw him They said unto the woman we believe no more for thy saying for we have heard and seen that he indeed is the Saviour of the world the Christ John 4.42 So Saint Austin might be moved by the voyce of the Church to give an ear to the Truth of the Gospel and yet was settled in the Beleef of it from its self by the Spirit of God When he did beleeve the immediate cause of his Divine Faith was from the Gospel by the Spirit of God although before he did beleeve he was moved to think well of the Gospel by the authority of the Church So he did not belive the Gospel by the authority of the Church as a Theological principle but as an outward mean and help thereunto For the authority of the Church could not by its testimony of the Gospel make it properly credible because the testimony of the Church is to be made true by it And if it be not true in it self then the testimony is false So that before we know whether the Gospel be true we know not whether the testimony of the Church be true As also we cannot tell how to beleeve that the Church should alwayes give a true testimony as you suppose in every point but by the Scripture And therefore there is no ground or rest for Faith but in the Scripture Since if we beleeve the Church because the Scripture gives testimony of it and then the Scripture because the Church gives testimony thereof we must first beleeve the Scripture before we beleeve the Church Therefore we must terminate our Faith in the Scripture and if we do beleeve it beleeve it for it self it being the first credible Fifthly Look to the end of that chapter and there after he had disputed subtilly he doth conclude soberly But God forbid that I should not beleeve the Gospel and then concludes against his Adversary from thence as the rule of the difference betwixt them for Beleeving that saith he I do not find how to beleeve you c. And that the Scripture is the Rule he went by you may see in his 32. chapter against Cresconius whether let me if you please refer you for brevitie None can overcome S. Austin but S. Austin And therefore I need not say any thing to the second testimony which is taken out of him against Cresconius Yet observe Although of this there is no example certainly brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also we keep the Truth of the Holy Scriptures in this when we do that which hath pleased the whole Church saith he Namely in that which is not a ruled case in Scripture as the question was about the Truth of the Baptisme of Hereticks It seems then if it had been determined in Scripture there had been an end of it that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive saith he And this property absolute belongs to it not to humanitie Whosoever doth fear to be deceived by the obscurity of the Question may ask counsel touching it of the Church whom without doubt the Scripture it self doth shew saith he First here is an obscure question about practice so are not all points Some are clear in Scripture and yet the Propsition is universall that we must believe every thing by the proposal of the Church as if we must beleeve nothing but what the Church defineth and whatsoever it doth define that we must beleeve Secondly VVe should ask counsel onely which doth not suppose an absolute determination Thirdly which Church the Scripture doth without doubt shew then the Church is to be proved by Scripture again And without doubt doth shew but doth not shew to be alwayes without doubt and infallible Fourthly he afterwards goeth about to prove it against him by testimonies out of Scripture But behold yet again in a third Testimony of Saint Austin No peaceable man will be against the Church Answer Saint Austin is again welcome I say so too and shall anon end with the whole Sentence And yet once more in a fourth Testimony Saint Austin It is of most insolent madness to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth VVe answer VVe say so too in things of indifferency which every particular Church hath power in for it self and the Catholicke Church for all And yet all Catholick practices are not now observed by the Church of Rome as for one Infant Communion But according to the Father if the Authority of the Scripture doth prescribe which of these is to be done it is not to be doubted that we should do so as we read In such things then which are defined by Scripture we know what we should do intuitively to Scripture without asking counsel of the Church As certainly I may believe that Jesus is the Christ that he that believeth shall be saved immediately out of Scripture and not upon the Churches proposal And now I have delivered you from your fear of my rejecting the Fathers Surely we should love the Fathers though they were our Enemies and we have no reason to fear them when they are our Friends Therefore if you please to give me leave so far let me say as Nilus the Archbishop of Thessalonica as the Book bears title said in his first Book about the Primacy of the Pope or the difference between the Greek and Latin Churches It is very unreasonable that you who have not the Fathers for your examples should of your selves understand that which is better and we who have the Fathers should not Afterwards in your Reply you come to upbraid me with Devotion to modern men But this Belief of yours concerning me is not well grounded we delight not our selves in being Servants to Men in matters of Faith What is true we like in any what is not true we do not like in any In Divine writings we take all for there we consider not so much what is said as who saith in Humane Writings we pick for we consider not who speaketh but what is said agreeable to the Scriptures Therefore with them we deal as Saint Austin with Saint Cyprians authority in the forenamed chapter against Cresc What we find in them which is agreeable to the Canonical Scripture we receive with commendation what doth not with their leaves we leave But to make as short work with them as I can I answer first as many testimonies and more clear might be found in them against you I hope if those testimonies be for you let one be set against the other And if you say I should be moved by them because they are ours I answer Secondly If they agree with the sense of the Fathers you cannot condemn them if they do not agree we do Thirdly It is possible to be Even with you in the same kind by a retaliation of Pontificians against you But Fourthly I could
finde in my heart not to say a word to them that you might see I do not give them that respect as to the Fathers And yet take the strength of all their authorities together and make of them an accumulative argument as we may speak yet they do not conclude your cause Calvin and his Schollar in their sayings affirm no more then that which we acknowledge not from them that the Church shall by the assistance of the Spirit be sufficiently furnished with necessary Doctrine unto Salvation but those of the Church invisible may be saved though the Church visible be not Infallible and by consequence not the ground of Faith As for Doctor Saravia's passage I answer it doth not come up close to your purpose The H. G. which beareth rule in the Church objectively is the true Interpreter of Scripture and thus it is not for you And if you understand the Church objectively yet first the matter he seems to speak to is of Discipline about Government of the Church depending upon Primitive Example but we are upon points of Faith Secondly He cannot be contrary to himselfe when he acts as he did formerly in the time of the Apostles but whether he doth so act now is a question yea no question Thirdly If you will with him and from him draw the Government of the Church to be proportionably Episcopal with all my heart I reject them that reject it And your Adversaries of Wittenberg confesse nothing for you The rule they speak of namely Prophetical and Apostolical preaching c. it is the Word of God written according to which she is bound to interpret those places which are obscure and to judge of Doctrines according to the rule which she hath received so as her Interpretations are to be agreeable to the analogy of Faith and her judgements of Doctrines to be made according to the Law of the Word namely harder places are to be expounded by those which are more plain and Controversies to be decided by that rule And all this makes nothing for you For thus the Scripture is the Rule ruling and the Church is but the Rule ruled And thus we follow the Church as the Church followes the rule as Saint Paul saith Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ in the first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11. v. 1. Or if those Lutherans mean by a certain rule any rule distinguished from Scripture it is to be understood of some general heads of Christian Doctrine in proportion whereunto doubtfull places and Doctrines were to be judged But those heads were to be gathered out of Scripture And so all is resolved towards belief in Scripture but I think no man can see how they should say such a rule which was not Scripture was confirmed by miracles So for them And for Doctor Field if you will go through the twentieth chapter of the fourth Book you shall finde nothing in him contrary to this Doctrine For he saith plainly that though the Canonical Books are received by way of Tradition yet the Scriptures have not their authority from the approbation of the Church but they win credit of themselves and yeild satisfaction to all men of their Divine Truth whence we judge that the Church which receiveth them is led by the Spirit of God Observe not because the Church is led by the Spirit of God therefore doth he say she receiveth them but because she receiveth them therefore we judge she is led by the Spirit of God And as for his Rule of Faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles what is he like to mean but the Apostles Creed which he saith there was delivered in the Church as a Rule of her Faith But even this binds not by authority of the Church or upon Vertue of Tradition but by proportion to Scripture where it is found in particulars of matter though not in form of a Creed We confesse also that we should search out the true Church as the same Doctour saith We confesse that the Catholick Church is the Houshold of Faith the Spouse of Christ the Church of the Living God and that we should embrace her Communion and rest in her judgement Yes but how Not ultimately not absolutely not in what so ever she saith because shee saith it but in what so ever shee saith from the Lord. For although she doth goe by an infallible Rule yet are we not sure she goeth by it infallibly Therefore though wee rest in her judgements as to Peace yet can wee not rest in her judgements as to Truth because our understandings are not free to assent to what man will as being bound to assent to that onely which is grounded in the Word of God in matters of Faith And now might I Vie with you in number of Pontificians against you See Durand in his Prologue upon the Sentences where he hath more to our purpose then is necessary to be Transcribed Read him your self Gerson also in his Sermon concerning Errours against Faith and Manners about the Precept Thou shalt not kill saith thus More freely more purely more truely more speedily is Truth found out and Errour reproved if the Divine Law alone be constituted as Judge according to the consideration of Aristotle He which makes the Law the Judge makes God but he that addes Man addes a Beast Panormitanus also upon the 5. of the Decret concerning almes in chap. qualiter quando The saying of any Saint established with the Authorities of the New or Old Testament is preferred before a Papal Constitution even in decision of Causes Also Ferus upon the 1 Epistle of Saint John 2. chapter in the 52.3 page of the Antuerpe Edition thus The Holy Ghost doth teach t is by the means of the Holy Scripture and Word Again The Holy Scripture is given to us as a certain sure Rule of Christian Doctrine And again in the same page For if having the Holy Scripture as a most certain Rule of Christian Doctrine set before our Eyes we notwithstanding teach things so unlike what would be done if the Scriptures were taken away And if you say now that there is added to those places Tradition in the Roman Edition after the Trent Council as is noted You will get nothing by that but shame to the Pontificians And now I think I am not much behind hand with you in Testimonies about the Question But then afterwards you presse harder upon me So you say but I do not yet feel the weight of any thing you say I beleeve the Creed and that the Church is Holy And I do not beleeve but know that from hence nothing is coming to your cause The Catholick Church makes not it self the ground of Faith but is grounded in it as before And how were the first Members of the Catholick Church made Christians but by the Word of God And from the Holynesse of it doth not follow infallibility by the Roman distinction which saith that the Pope may erre
again this obedience he speaks of would be rational obedience and therefore not blind For to follow such a Guide which is always ruled by Christ and therefore never swerves from his word if this can be made good to me that any Church doth and cannot do other is very rationall and not blind obedience If the saying and definition of the Church be assured by Christ and his word to be according to Christ and his word it is necessary to be obedient to it as to what I finde in Scripure though I do not comprehend the reason of it as the Scripture doth bind to faith without dispute so would the Church were I assured by the Scripture that the Church could not swerve from it But here are two things wanting one is of a proof that the Church hath not swerved And a second that it cannot swerve from the word of God For my faith must build it self immediately not upon the former because the power of swerving is not sufficiently secured by the negative but it must be built upon the impossibilitie and this should be demonstrated And still I must mind you that I speake of the Vniversall Church convented in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Supreme Pastor Ans And I still say that the Universall Church so constituted is not free from the least danger of swerving from the word of God And this in grosse were enough untill it were made good by sound Argument Yet also particularly First he meanes the Universall Church representatively for otherwise all cannot come together but then let us have an account why there could not be admitted to the titles of the Trent Councell that which the â—rench so much urged namely representing the Universall Church If it did represent the Universal Church why might it not be said in the title If it did not how does he say the Vniversall Church convented in a General Council 2. A Supreme Pastor in your sense should be proved and not supposed For we acknowledge no Supreme Pastor but Christ which can give life or law to all the Church He the Pastor and Bishop of our souls 1 Pet. 2.25 He the chief Pastor 1 Pet. 5.4 And all Bishops under him do equally participate a Vicarial care of the Church But thirdly the Trent Council according to you was general and confirmed by the Supreme Pastor and Vigilius was the Tutilarie Saint of the valley of Trent and yet the Trent Councell swerved grossely from the word of God and particularly in the matter of half communion as in the twentie first session notwithstanding Christ his institution and the severall interpretations of the Doctors and Fathers acknowledged against them in the first chap. of that session and although from the begining of Christian Religion the use under both kinds was not unfrequent as is confessed in the second ch Fourthly if the Church so constituted cannot swerve from the word of God why did the Trent Councell feare to determine what is the nature of original sin which Viga urged them to upon good reasons And why did they not determine whether the blessed Virgin was exempted from original infection whereof the Franciscans so much urged the affirmative to be defined the Dominicans the negative And yet in saying non esse suae intentionis it was not of their intention to comprehend in this Decree wherein original sin is handled the blessed and immaculate Virgine they do interpretatively exempt her though St. Paul and all holy Doctâ—â—â— did not exempt her as the Dominicans urged and so they do in effect contradict their universal proposition wherein it is said Propagatione non imitatione transfusum omnibus at least it makes that definition uncertain as the German Protestants noted Therefore that which followes in his Paper doth not follow in reason This Church guiding by her infalible Doctrine is this way the Church diffusive guided now by this doctrine was promised this direct way Such a way we were promised a way so direct represented that fools cannot erre by it Ans These words might have been all spared for they are all as Ciphers till one thing be proved and that is the infalible Doctrine as a property inseparable to the Church If the Church goes this way to prove her selfe the way she is not the way because she goes out of the way or else Christ was out of the way and the Primitive Church was not the Church when for so many yeares it is confessed that there was no General Council and is not proved that there was a Pope in their sence as indeed there was none So then the Church universal is not the way universally so direct that fools cannot erre for in all times there was not the universall Church so represented nor the Decrees of the represented Church so confirmed because there was no Pope And therefore if yet the Church had another way then we have more reason to go that way than the way which leads to Rome and from Rome we know not whither but to darknesse and those that follow this way are not wiser by following it for they are not wise in following it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Hierocles said well Both these things are good to know that we do not know and to know what we do not know And surely if we should go their blinde way we should neither know what wise men know nor know neither that we are ignorant Therefore Catarinus and Marinarus took another way to assert certainty of Grace namely by Scripture as we have it in the History of the Trent Council wherein they shaked the Adversaries of the opinion and brought them to some moderation And this example of theirs in following the Scriptures might if we were doubtfull of our cause yet incourage us to give check to that which follows The Scripture as some may conceive for you dare not defend it is not this way Ans All conceive that it is the way but your Church Yea all your Church are not for this Church way Besides those named the Arch-Bishops of Collen Catarinus Marinarus how many even in the face of the Trent Councell have urged Scripture against all other Arguments The antient Fathers made the Scripture their way and rule and therefore their authorities are not answered to by my Antagonist for that they are unanswerable Therefore we dare and do defend it for it will defend us in the doing of it But this Campian bragged of our diffidence We return as he did who was to be put to death as Tacitus relates it when the Executioner bad him beare it bravely he replied Vtinam tu tam fortiter feries So I would my Adversary had as strongly opposed as we are in hope to answer But it were better for them to have either lesse confidence or to add more strength As Archidamus said to his son after an unsuccesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So let them give stronger Arguments or quit the cause Let us see his reason For