them concluded and both of them wrote Books to maintain their Opinions and both of their Books were published by Authority And therefore I think 't is allowed in the Church of Rome to private men to express your Catholike Doctrine and in a matter subject to Question And therefore also if another man in the Church of England should be of a contrary Opinion to M. Rogers and declare it under the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England this were no more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome And I for my part cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it For he says that for ought he knows private men are not allowed so to express their Catholike Doctrine And in the same Question both Catharinus and Bellarmine take on them to express your Catholike Faith the one differing from the other almost as much as Soto and Vega and perhaps in some respect more F. But if M. Rogers be only a private man in what Book may we find the Protestants publike Doctrine The Bishop answered That to the Book of Articles they were all sworn B. § 14 Num. 1 What Was I so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all the Protestants Or that all the Protestants were sworn to the Articles of England as this speech seems to imply Sure I was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the Subject of the Speech to be varied in the next lines Nor yet speak I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines and in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions But if A. C. will say as he doth that because there was speech before of the Church of England the Jesuite understood me in a limited sense and meant only the Protestants of the English Church Be it so there 's no great harm done but this that the Jesuite offers to inclose me too much For I did not say that the Book of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine She is not so narrow nor hath she purpose to exclude any thing which she acknowledges hers nor doth she wittingly permit any Crossing of her publike Declarations yet she is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her Blessing or Denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation as your own School-men differ And if the Church of Rome since she grew to her greatness had not been so fierce in this Course and too particular in Determining too many things and making them matters of Necessary Belief which had gone for many hundreds of years before only for things of Pious Opinion Christendom I perswade my self had been in happier peace at this Day than I doubt we shall ever live to see it Num. 2 Well But A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew and such a Shrew For in her Book of Canons She excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon nor perhaps the sense Not the Words for they are Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious c. And perhaps not the sense For it is one thing for a man to hold an Opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publikely to affirm it And again 't is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article which perhaps may be but in the manner of Expression and another thing positively to affirm that the Articles in any part of them are superstitious and erroneous But this is not the Main of the Business For though the Church of England Denounce Excommunication as is before expressed Yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome's severity whose Anathema's are not only for 39 Articles but for very many more above one hundred in matters of Doctrine and that in many Poynts as far remote from the Foundation though to the far greater Rack of mens Consciences they must be all made Fundamental if that Church have once Determined them whereas the Church of England never declared That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith For 't is one thing to say No one of them is superstitious or erroneous And quite another to say Every one of them is fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens Belief Besides the Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable Consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole World under pain of Damnation F. And that the Scriptures only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. § 15 Num. 1 The Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And here not the Church of England only but all Protestants agree most truly and most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the School-men not strangers in it And have not we reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himself though an angry Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimony and in the matter or thing to be believed And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which we are to go for witness if there be Doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed as necessary in the Faith we never did nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Universal and Apostolike for the better Exposition of the Scripture nor any Definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what she teaches and thrusts nothing as Fundamental in the Faith upon the world but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam Credendorum the substance of that which is so to be believed whether immediately and expresly in words or more remotely where a clear and full Deduction draws it out Num. 2 Against the beginning of this Paragraph A. C. excepts And first he says 'T is true that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture That is 't is true if themselves may be competent Judges in their own Cause But this by the leave of A. C. is true without making our selves Judges in our own Cause For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of
peradventure all this be contained I believe those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily understood That I believe the Church teaching as an Infallible Witness And if they did not confess this it were no hard thing to prove Num. 5 But her'e 's the cunning of this Devise All the Authorities of Fathers Councels nay of Scripture too though this be contrary to their own Doctrine must be finally Resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own Writings or the Decrees of Councels because as they say we cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church reaching by Tradition Now by this two things are evident First That they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholike Church as they do to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Society of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in All things that any Part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the Whole Secondly that in their Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of their Church their proceeding is most unreasonable For if you ask them Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith Their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Word of God and the Doctrine and Tradition of the Ancient Church If you ask them How they know that to be so They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture Councels and Fathers But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that these Testimonies do indeed make for them and their Cause They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture or Exposition of Fathers or Phrase and propriety of Languagâ— in which either of them were first written or to the scope of the Author or the Causes of the thing uttered or the Conference with like Places or the Antecedents and Consequents of the same Places or the Exposition of the dark and doubtful Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of Scripture which do frequently occur in S. Augustine No none of these or the like helps That with them were to admit a Private Spirit or to make way for it But their final Answer is They know it to be so because the present Roman Church witnesseth it according to Tradition So arguing â— primo ad ultimum from first to last the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her own Doctrine and Tradition to be true and Catholike because she professes it to be such And if this be not to prove idem per idem the same by the same I know not what is which though it be most absurd in all kind of Learning yet out of this I see not how 't is possible to winde themselves so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest as they teach upon the Tradition of the present Church only Num. 6 It seems therefore to me very necessary that we be able to prove the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine For if they be warranted unto us by any Authority less than Divine then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Objects of Divine belief And that once granted will enforce us to yield That all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance than Humane or Moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility at least in the last Resolution of our Faith in that Point This Authority cannot be any Testimony or Voice of the Church alone For the Church consists of men subject to Error And no one of them since the Apostles times hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the Blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived And all the Parts being all liable to mistaking and fallible the Whole cannot possibly be Infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some Things or other And even in those Fundamental Things in which the Whole Universal Church neither doth nor can Erre yet even there her Authority is not Divine because She delivers those supernatural Truths by Promise of Assistance yet tyed to Means And not by any special immediate Revelation which is necessarily required to the very least Degree of Divine Authority And therefore our Worthies do not only say but prove That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of Humane Law And some among you not unworthy for their Learning prove it at large That all the Churches Testimony or Voyce or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Divine Yea and A. C. himself after all his debate comes to that and no further That the Tradition of the Church is at least in some sort Divine and Infallible Now that which is Divine but in a sort or manner be it the Churches manner is aliquo modo non Divina in a sort not Divine But this Great Principle of Faith the Ground and Proof of whatsoever else is of Faith cannot stand firm upon a Proof that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Divine As it must if we have no other Anchor than the External Tradition of the Church to lodge it upon and hold it steddy in the midst of those waves which daily beat upon it Num. 7 Now here A. C. confesses expresly That to prove the Books of Scripture to be Divine we must be warranted by that which is Infallible He confesses farther that there can be no sufficient Infallible Proof of this but Gods Word written or unwritten And he gives his Reason for it Because if the Proof be meerly Humane and Fallible the Science or Faith which is built upon it can be no better So then this is agreed on by me yet leaving other men to travel by their own way so be they can come to make Scripture thereby Infallible That Scripture must be known to be Scripture by a sufficient Infallible Divine Proof And that such Proof can be nothing but the Word of God is agreed on also by me Yea and agreed on for me it shall be likewise that Gods Word may be written and unwritten For Cardinal Bellarmine tells us truly that it is not the writing or printing that make Scripture the Word of God but it is the Prime Unerring Essential Truth God himself uttering and revealing it to his Church that makes it Verbum Dei the Word of God And this Word of
God is uttered to men either immediately by God himself Father Son and Holy Ghost and so 't was to the Prophets and Apostles Or mediately either by Angels to whom God had spoken first and so the Law was given Gal. 3. and so also the Message was delivered to the Blessed Virgin S. Luke 1. or by the Prophets and Apostles and so the Scriptures were delivered to the Church But their being written gave them no Authority at all in regard of themselves Written or Unwritten the Word was the same But it was written that it might be the better preserved and continued with the more integrity to the use of the Church and the more faithfully in our Memories And you have been often enough told were truth and not the maintaining of a party the thing you seek for that if you will shew us any such unwritten word of God delivered by his Prophets and Apostles we will acknowledge it to be Divine and Infallible So written or unwritten that shall not stumble us But then A. C. must not tell us at least not think we shall swallow it into our Belief That every thing which he says is the unwritten Word of God is so indeed Num. 8 I know Bellarmine hath written a whole Book De verbo Dei non scripto of the Word of God not written in which he handles the Controversie concerning Traditions And the Cunning is to make his weaker Readers believe that all that which He and his are pleased to call Traditions are by and by no less to be received and honoured than the unwritten Word of God ought to be Whereas 't is a thing of easie knowledge That the unwritten Word of God and Tradition are not Convertible Terms that is are not all one For there are many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church for ought appears And there are many Traditions affirmed at least to be such by the Church of Rome which were never warranted by any Unwritten Word of God Num. 9 First That there are many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church is manifest For when or where were the words which Christ spake to his Apostles during the forty days of his Conversing with them after his Resurrection first delivered over to the Church or what were the Unwritten Words he then spake If neither He nor His Apostles or Evangelists have delivered them to the Church the Church ought not to deliver them to her Children Or if she do tradere non traditions make a Tradition of that which was not delivered to her and by some of Them then She is unfaithful to God and doth not servare depositum faithfully keep that which is committed to her Trust. 1 Tim. 6. And her Sons which come to know it are not bound to obey her Tradition against the Word of their Father For wheresoever Christ holds his peace or that his words are not Registred I am of S. Augustines Opinion No man may dare without rashness say they were these or these So there were many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church and therefore never made Tradition And there are many Traditions which cannot be said to be the Unwritten Word of God For I believe a Learned Romanist that will weigh before he speaks will not easily say That to Anoint or use Spittle in Baptism or to use three Dippings in the use of that Sacrament or divers other like Traditions had their Rise from any Word of God unwritten Or if he be so hardy as to say so 't is gratis dictum and he will have enough to do to prove it So there may be an Unwritten Word of God which is no Tradition And there are many Traditions which are no Unwritten Word of God Therefore Tradition must be taken two ways Either as it is the Churches Act delivering or the Thing thereby delivered and then 't is Humane Authority or from it and unable infallibly to warrant Divine Faith or to be the Object of it Or else as it is the Unwritten Word of God and then where ever it can be made to appear so 't is of divine and infallible Authority no Question But then I would have A. C. consider where he is in this Particular He tells us We must know infallibly that the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine and that this must be done by Unwritten Tradition but so as that this Tradition is the Word of God unwritten Now let him but prove that this or any Tradition which the Church of Rome stands upon is the Word of God though unwritten and the business is ended But A. C. must not think that because the Tradition of the Church tells me these Books are Verbum Dei Gods Word and that I do both honour and believe this Tradition That therefore this Tradition it self is Gods Word too and so absolutely sufficient and infallible to work this Belief in me Therefore for ought A. C. hath yet added we must on with our Inquiry after this great Business and most necessary Truth Num. 10 2. For the second way of proving That Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it self only and by the witness that it can so give to it self I could never yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells us Such Books containing such and such Particulars are the Canon and Infallible Will and Word of God So if there were any such place that were no sufficient proof For a man may justly ask another Book to bear witness of that and again of that another and where ever it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the Whole And no created thing can alone give witness to it self and make it evident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Except those Principles only of Natural knowledge which appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding without any Discourse And yet they also to the weaker sort require Induction preceding Now this Inbred light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture it self and so the Principles and the Conclusion in this kind of proof should be entirely the same which cannot be Besides if this inward Light were so clear how could there have been any variety among the Ancient Believers touching the Authority of S. James and S. Jude's Epistles and the Apocalyps with other Books which were not received for divers years after the rest of the New Testament For certainly the Light which is in the Scripture was the same then which now it is And how could the Gospel of S. Bartholomew of S. Thomas and other counterfeit pieces obtain so much credit with some as to be received
into the Canon if the evidence of this Light were either Universal or Infallible of and by it self And this though I cannot approve yet methinks you may and upon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will deny but that there is as much light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it self to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Divine and infallibly the Unwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the †Apostles that the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to bear witness to their own Verity as the Church is to bear witness to her own Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selves would never go to the Scripture to prove that there are Traditions as you do if you did not think the Scripture as easie to be discovered by inbred light in it self as Traditions by their light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirm That Scripture may be known to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it self as it is which you affirm That a Tradition may be known to be such by the light which it hath in it self which is an excellent Proposition to make sport withal were this an Argument to be handled merrily Num. 11 3. For the third Opinion and way of proving either some think that there is no sufficient warrant for this unless they fetch it from the Testimony of the Holy Ghost and so look in vain after special Revelations and make themselves by this very Conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing private spirit or else you would fain have them think so For your side both upon this and other Occasions do often challenge That we resolve all our Faith into the Dictates of a private Spirit from which we shall ever prove our selves as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed upon that there must be a Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum under which can rest no possible errour That the Books of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which go to the testimony of the Holy Ghost for proof of this do mean by Faith Objectum Fidei the Object of Faith that is to be believed then no question they are out of the ordinary way For God never sent us by any word or warrant of his to look for any such special and private Testimony to prove which that Book is that we must believe But if by Faith they mean the Habit or Act of Divine infused Faith by which vertue they do believe the Credible Object and thing to be believed then their speech is true and confessed by all Divines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infused Habit in respect whereof the Soul is meerly recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that work which none can do but He. For the Holy Ghost as He first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles So did he not leave the Church in general nor the true members of it in particular without Grace to believe what himself had revealed and made Credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receive a kind of preparation or Occasion of Beginning from the Testimony of the Church as it proposeth and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God revealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God move the Heart of man he cannot believe be the Object never so Credible The speech is true then but quite out of the State of this Question which inquires only after a sufficient means to make this Object Credible and fit to be believed against all impeachment of folly and temerity in Belief whether men do actually believe it or not For which no man may expect inward private Revelation without the external means of the Church unless perhaps the case of Necessity be excepted when a man lives in such a time and place as excludes him from all ordinary means in which I dare not offer to shut up God from the Souls of men nor to tye him to those ordinary ways and means to which yet in great wisdom and providence He hath tied and bound all mankind Num. 12 Private Revelation then hath nothing ordinarily to do to make the Object Credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and evident means as other men may take notice of as well as our selves By which if there arise any Doubting or Infirmity in the Faith others may strengthen us or we afford means to support them Whereas the Testimony of the Spirit and all private Revelation is within nor felt nor seen of any but him that hath it So that hence can be drawn no proof to others And Miracles are not sufficient alone to prove it unless both They and the Revelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an unalterable Rule by man or Angel To all this A. C. says nothing save that I seem not to admit of an Infallible Impulsion of a private Spirit ex parte subjecti without any infallible Reason and that sufficiently applied ex parte objecti which if I did admit would open a gap to all Enthusiasms and dreams of fanatical men Now for this yet I thank him For I do not only seem not to admit but I do most clearly reject this phrensie in the words going before Num. 13 4. The last way which gives Reason leave to come in and prove what it can may not justly be denied by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heaven nor believe this Book in which God hath written the way yet Grace is never placed but in a reasonable Creature and proves by the very seat which it hath taken up that the end it hath is to be spiritual eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature only it cannot but never to blemish Reason in that which it can comprehend Now the use of Reason is very general and man do what he can is still apt to search and seek for a Reason why he will believe though after he once believes his Faith grows stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other can in this life Num. 14 In this Particular the Books called the Scripture
till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And animalis homo the natural man sees some Light of Moral counsel and instruction in Scripture as well as Believers But he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-light and cannot distinguish between the Sun and twelve to the Pound till Tradition of the Church and Gods Grace put to it have cleared his understanding So Tradition of the present Church is the first Moral Motive to Belief But the Belief it self That the Scripture is the Word of God rests upon the Scripture when a man finds it to answer and exceed all that which the Church gave in Testimony as will after appear And as in the Voyce of the Primitive and Apostolical Church there was simply Divine Authority delivering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soul the Voyce of God i◠plainly heard in Scripture it self And then here 's double Authority and both Divine that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it And the internal worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a Soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace Num. 22 The Difficulties which are pretended against this are not many and they will easily vanish For first you pretend we go to Private Revelations for Light to know Scripture No we do not you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question and we go to the Tradition of the present Church and by it as well as you Here we differ we use the Tradition of the present Church as the first Motive not as the Last Resolution of our Faith We Resolve only into Prime Tradition Apostolical and Scripture it self Num. 23 Secondly you pretend we do not nor cannot know the prime Apostolical Tradition but by the Tradition of the present Church and that therefore if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods unwritten Word and Divine we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture by a Divine Authority Well I Suppose I could not know the prime Tradition to be Divine but by the present Church yet it doth not follow that therefore I cannot know Scripture to be the Word of God by a Divine Authority because Divine Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove it For suppose I had not nor could have full assurance of Apostolical Tradition Divine yet the moral perswasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough to move any reasonable man that it is fit he should read the Scripture and esteem very reverently and highly of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and Home-Arguments enough to put a Soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of Doubt That Scripture is the Word of God Infallible and Divine Num. 24 Thirdly you pretend that we make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be known Lumine suo by the Light and Testimony which it hath in and gives to it self Against this you give reason for your selves and proof from us Your Reason is If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it self then every man that can and doth but read it may know it presently to be the Divine Word of God which we see by daily experience men neither do nor can First it is not absolutely nor universally true There is sufficient Light therefore every man may see it Blinde men are men and cannot see it and sensual men in the Apostles judgment are such Nor may we deny and put out this Light as insufficient because blind eyes cannot and perverse eyes will not see it no more than we may deny meat to be sufficient for nourishment though men that are heart-sick cannot eat it Next we do not say That there is such a full light in Scripture as that every man upon the first sight must yeeld to it such Light as is found in Prime Principles Every whole is greater than a Part of the same and this The same thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect These carry a natural Light with them and evident for the Terms are no sooner understood then the Principles themselves are fully known to the convincing of mans understanding and so they are the beginning of knowledge which where it is perfect dwells in full Light but such a full Light we do neither say is nor require to be in Scripture and if any particular man do let him answer for himself The Question is only of such a Light in Scripture as is of force to breed faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect knowledge Now Faith of whatsoever it is this or other Principle is an Evidence as well as Knowledge and the Belief is firmer than any Knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine Authority which cannot deceive whereas Knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in Deductions from Principles But the Evidence is not so clear For it is of things not seen in regard of the Object and in regard of the Subject that sees it is in aenigmate in a Glass or dark speaking Now God doth not require a full Demonstrative Knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no Light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certain Demonstration as may fit that And for that he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting where the Soul is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church unless you be of Bellarmine's Opinion That to believe there are any Divine Scriptures is not omninò necessary to Salvation Num. 25 The Authority which you pretend against this is out of Hooker Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Books we are bound to esteem Holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach Of this Brierly the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and yet seem well read tell us That Hooker gives a very sensible Demonstration It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his Word for if any one Book of Scripture did give Testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way so that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure c. And this he acknowledgeth saith Brierly is the Authority of Gods Church Certainly Hooker gives a true and a sensible Demonstration but Brierly wants fidelity and integrity in citing him For in the first place Hooker's speech is Scripture it self cannot teach this nor can the Truth say that Scripture it self can It must needs
there is by Historical and acquired Faith And if Consent of Humane Story can assure me this why should not Consent of Church-story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Jews Enemies to Christ they bear witness to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations give in evidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other Enemies of Christianity can give such a Worthy and Consenting Testimony for any Authority upon which they rely or almost for any Principle which they have as the Scripture hath gained to it self And as is the Testimony which it receives above all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Divine Authority in a Word written or Unwritten A great assurance and it is Infallible too Only then we must distinguish Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Object of Belief when it is true and remains so For Truth quà talis as it is Truth cannot deceive Secondly a thing is said to be Infallible when it is not only true and remains so actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and upon such ground as that no Degree of falshood at any time in any respect can fall upon it Certain it is that by Humane Authority Consent and Proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith cui non subest falsum under which nor Error nor falshood is But he cannot be assured insallibly by Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falshood can come but by a Divine Testimony This Testimony is absolute in Scripture it self delivered by the Apostles for the Word of God and so sealed to our Souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motive is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Divine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolve our Faith but only as is before expressed Num. 2 And now to come close to the Particular The time was before this miserable Rent in the Church of Christ which I think no true Christian can look upon but with a bleeding heart that you and We were all of One Belief That belief was tainted in tract and corruption of times very deeply A Division was made yet so that both Parts held the Creed and other Common Principles of Belief Of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God For our belief of all things contained in it depends upon it Since this Division there hath been nothing done by us to discredit this Principle Nay We have given it all honour and ascribed unto it more sufficiencie even to the containing of all things necessary to salvation with Satis superque enough and more than enough which your selves have not done do not And for begetting and setling a Belief of this Principle we go the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you Because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing Motive to embrace this Principle only we cannot go so far in this way as you to make the present Tradition always an Infallible Word of God unwritten For this is to go so far in till you be out of the way For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church it hath an end not only to receive us in but another after to let us out into more open and richer ground And we go a better way than you Because after we are moved and prepared and induced by Tradition we resolve our Faith into that Written Word and God delivering it in which we find materially though not in Terms the very Tradition that led us thither And so we are sure by Divine Authority that we are in the way because at the end we find the way proved And do what can be done you can never settle the Faith of man about this great Principle till you rise to greater assurance than the Present Church alone can give And therefore once again to that known place of S. Augustine The words of the Father are Nisi commoveret Unless the Authority of the Church moved me but not alone but with other Motives else it were not commovere to move together And the other Motives are Resolvers though this be Leader Now since we go the same way with you so far as you go right and a better way than you where you go wrong we need not admit any other Word of God than we do And this ought to remain as a Presupposed Principle among all Christians and not so much as come into this Question about the sufficiencie of Scripture between you and us But you say that F. From this the Lady called us and desiring to hear Whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church The B. granted That it was B. § 20 Num. 1 One occasion which moved Tertullian to write his Book d◠Praescript adversus Haereticos was That he saw little or no Profit come by Disputations Sure the Ground was the same then and now It was not to deny that Disputation is an Opening of the Understanding a sifting out of Truth it was not to affirm that any such Disquisition is in and of it self unprofitable If it had S. Stephen would not have disputed with the Cyrenians nor S. Paul with the Grecians first and then with the Jews and all Comers No sure it was some Abuse in the Disputants that frustrated the good of the Disputation And one Abuse in the Disputants is a Resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth And so I find it here For as it is true that this Question was asked so it is altogether false that it was asked in this form or so answered There is a great deal of Difference especially as Romanists handle the Question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church which is the word you use but no man else that I know I am sure not I. Num. 2 For The Church may import in our Language The only true Church and perhaps as some of you seem to make it the Root and the Ground of the Catholike And this I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more than that it is a member of the Whole And this I never did nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right as you impose upon me For Ens and Verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is
by Apostolical Authority by Bellarmine's own rule For it hath a Beginning Thirdly I observe too that Bellarmine cannot well tell where to lay the foundation of Purgatory that it may be safe For first he labours to found it upon Scripture To that end he brings no fewer then ten places out of the Old Testament and nine out of the New to prove it And yet fearing lest these places be strained as indeed they are and so too weak to be laid under such a vast pile of Building as Purgatory is he flies to unwritten Tradition And by this Word of God unwritten he says 't is manifest that the Doctrine of Purgatory was delivered by the Apostles Sure if Nineteen places of Scripture cannot prove it I would be loth to flie to Tradition And if Recourse to Tradition be necessary then certainly those places of Scripture made not the proof they were brought for And once more how can Bellarmine say here That we finde not the Beginning hujus dogmatis of this Article when he had said before that he had found it in the Nineteen places of Scripture For if in these places he could not finde the beginning of the Doctrine of Purgatory he is false while he says he did And if he did finde it there then he is false here in saying we finde no beginning of it And for all his Brags of Omnes Veteres all the Ancient Greek and Latine do constantly teach Purgatory Yet Alphons à Castro deals honestly and plainly and tells us That the mention of Purgatory in Ancient Writers is ferè nulla almost none at all especially in the Greoks And he addes That hereupon Purgâ—tory 〈◊〉 not believed by the Graecians to this very day And what noâ— I pray after all this may I not so much as delâ—berately doubt of this because 't is now Defined and but now in a manner and thus No sure So A. C. tells you Doubt No For when you had fooled the Archbishop of Spalatâ— back to Rome there you either made him say or said it for him for in Print it is and under his Name That since 't is now defined by the Church a man is as much bound to believe there is a Purgatory as that there is a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead How far comes this short of Blasphemy to make the Trinity and Purgatory things alike and equally Credible Num. 18 Yea but A. C. will give you a Reason why no man may deliberately doubt much less deny any thing that is defined by a General Councel And his Reason is Because every such doubt and denyal is a breach from the one saving faith This is a very good reason if it be true But how appears it to be true How why it takes away saith A. C. Infallible credit from the Church and so the Divine Revelation not being sufficiently applied it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods providence breed Infallible Belief in us Why but deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny upon the grounds and in the manner aforesaid doth not take away Infallible credit from the whole Church but onely from the Definition of a General Councel some way or other misled And that in things not absolutely Necessary to all mens Salvation for of such things A. C. here speaks expresly Now to take away Infallible credit from some Definitions of General Councels in things not absolutely necessary to Salvation is no breach upon the one saving Faith which is necessary nor upon the Credit of the Catholike Church of Christ in things absolutely necessary for which onely it had Infallible assistance promised So that no breach being made upon the Faith nor no Credit which ever it had being taken from the Church the Divine Revelation may be and is as sufficiently applied as ever it was and in the ordinary course of Gods providence may breed as Infallible belief in things necessary to Salvation as ever it did Num. 19 But A. C. will prove his Reason before given and therefore he asks out of S. Paul Rom. 10 Now shall men believe unless they hear How shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they preach to wit Infallibly â—â—less they be senâ— that is from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit Here 's that which I have twice at least spoken to already namely That A. C. by this will make every Priest in the Church of Rome that hath Learning enough to preach and dissents not from that Church an Infallible Preacher which no Father of the Primitive Church did ever assume to himself nor the Church give him And yet the Fathers of the Primitive Church were sent and from God were assisted and by God and did sufficiently propose to men the Divine Revelation and did by it beget and breed up Faith saving Faith in the Souls of men Though no one among them since the Apostles was an Infallible Preacher And A. C. should have done very well here to have made it manifest That this Scripture How shall they preach to wit infallibly is so interpreted by Union Consent of Fathers and Definitions of Councels as he bragged before that they use to interpret Scripture For I do not finde How shall they preach to wit Infallibly to be the Comment of any one of the Fathers or any other approved Author And let him shew it if he can Num. 20 After this for I see the good man is troubled and forward and backward he goes he falls immediately upon this Question If a whole General Councel defining what is Divine Truth be not believed to be sent and assisted by Gods Spirit and consequently of Infallible Credit what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit Well first A. C. hath very ill luck in fitting his Conclusion to his Premises and his Consequent to his Antecedent And so 't is here with him For a General Councel may be assisted by God's Spirit and in a great measure too and in a greater than any private man not inspired and yet not consequently be of Infallible credit for all assistance of God's Spirit reaches not up to Infallibility I hope the Antient Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church were assisted by God's Spirit and in a plentiful measure too and yet A. C. himself will not say they were Infallible And secondly for the Question it self If a General Councel be not what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit Truly I 'll make you a ready Answer No man Not the Pope himself No Let God and his Word be true and every man a Lyer Rom. 3. for so more or less every man will be found to be And this is neither dammage to the Church nor wrong to the person of any Num. 21 But then A. C. asks a shrewder Question than this If such a Councel lawfully called continued and confirmed may erre in
edification of the Church Now if he do mean to prove the Pope's Infallibility by this place in his Pastoral Judgement Truly I do not see how this can possibly be collected thence Christ gave some to be Apostles for the Edification of his Church Therefore S. Peter and all his Successors are Infallible in their Pastoral Judgement And if he mean to prove the Continued Visible Succession which he saith is to be found in no Church but the Romane there 's a little more shew but to no more purpose A little more shew Because it is added Vers. 13. That the Apostles and Prophets c. shall continue at their work and that must needs be by Succession till we all meet in unity and perfection of Christ. But to no more purpose For 't is not said that they or their Successors should continue at this work in a personal uninterrupted Succession in any one Particular Church Romane or other Nor ever will A. C. be able to prove that such a Succession is necessary in any one particular place And if he could yet his own words tell us the Personal Succession is nothing if the Faith be not brought down without change from Christ and his Apostles to this day and so to the end of the world Now here 's a piece of Cunning too The Faith brought down unchanged For if A. C. mean by the Faith the Creed and that in Letter 't is true the Church of Rome hath received and brought down the Faith unchanged from Christ and his Apostles to these our days But then 't is apparently false That no Church differing from the Romane in Doctrine hath kept that Faith unchanged and that by a visible and continued Succession For the Greek Church differs from the Romane in Doctrine and yet hath so kept that Faith unchanged But if he mean by the Faith unchanged and yet brought down in a continual visible Succession not onely the Creed in Letter but in Sense too And not that onely but all the Doctrinal Points about the Faith which have been Determined in all such Councels as the present Church of Rome allows as most certainly he doth so mean and 't is the Controversie between us then 't is most certain and most apparent to any understanding man that reads Antiquity with an impartial eye that a Visible Continual Succession of Doctors and Pastors have not brought down the Faith in this sence from Christ and his Apostles to these days of ours in the Romane Church And that I might not be thought to say and not to prove I give instance And with this that if A. C. or any Jesuite can prove That by a Visible Continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this day either Transubstantiation in the Eucharist Or the Eucharist in one kinde Or Purgatory Or worship of Images Or the Intention of the Priest of necessity in Baptism Or the Power of the Pope over a General Councel Or his Infallibility with or without it Or his Power to depose Princes Or the publike Prayers of the Church in an unknown tongue with divers other Points have been so taught I for my part will give the Cause Beside for Succession in the general I shall say this 'T is a great happiness where it may be had Visible and Continued and a great Conquest over the Mutability of this present world But I do not finde any one of the Ancient Fathers that makes Local Personal Visible and Continued Succession a Necessary Signe or Mark of the true Church in any one place And where Vincentius Lirinensts calls for Antiquity Universality and Consent as great Notes of Truth he hath not one word of Succession And for that great place in Irenaeus where that Ancient Father reckons the Succession of the Bishops of Rome to Eleutherius who sate in his time and saith That this is a most full and ample proof or Ostension Vivificatricem Fidem that the Living and Life-giving Faith is from the Apostles to this day Conserved and delivered in Truth And of which place Bellarmine boasts so much Most manifest it is in the very same place that Irenaeus stood as much upon the Succession of the Churches then in Asia and of Smyrna though that no prime Apostolical Church where Polycarpus sate Bishop as of the Succession at Rome By which it is most manifest that it is not Personal Succession onely and that tyed to one Place that the Fathers meant but they taught that the Faith was delivered over by Succession in some places or other still to their present time And so doubtless shall be till Time be no more I say The Faith But not every Opinion true or false that in tract of time shall cleave to the Faith And to the Faith it self and all it's Fundamentals we can shew as good and full a Succession as you And we pretend no otherwise to it than you do save that We take in the Greeks which you do not Only we reject your gross Superstitions to which you can shew no Succession from the Apostles either at Rome or else-where much less any one uninterrupted And therefore he might have held his peace that says It is evident that the Roman Catholike Church only hath had a Constant and uninterrupted Succession of Pastors and Doctors and Tradition of Doctrine from Age to Age. For most evident it is That the Tradition of Doctrine hath received both Addition and Alteration since the first five hundred years in which Bellarmine confesses and B. Jewel maintains the Churches Doctrine was Apostolical Num. 8 And once more before I leave this Point Most evident it is That the Succession which the Fathers meant is not tyed to Place or Person but 't is tyed to the Verity of Doctrine For so Tertullian expresly Beside the order of Bishops running down in Succession from the beginning there is required Consanguinitas Doctrinae that the Doctrine be allyed in blood to that of Christ and his Apostles So that if the Doctrine be no kinnâ— to Christ all the Succession become strangers what nearness soever they pretend And Irenaeus speaks plainer than he We are to obey those Presbyters which together with the Succession of their Bishopricks have received Charisma Veritatis the gift of truth Now Stapleton being press'd hard with these two Authorities first Confesses expresly That Succession as it is a Note of the true Church is neither a Succession in place onely nor of Person onely but it must be of true and sound Doctrine also And had he stayed here no man could have said better But then he saw well he must quit his great Note of the Church-Succession That he durst not doe Therefore he begins to cast about how he may answer these Fathers and yet maintain Succession Secondly therefore he tells us That that which these Fathers say do nothing weaken Succession but that it shall still be a main Note of the true
double divine authority 54 65 66. what measure of light is or can be required in it 55 56 as now set forth and printed of what authority it is 59 63 Scripture and Tradition confirm either other mutually not equally 63 The way of the Ancient Church of proving Scripture to be Gods Word 65. four proofs brought for it ibid. the seeming contradiction of Fathers touching Scripture and Tradition reconciled 66. belief of Scripture the true grounds of it 71 72 73. rules of finding the true sense of it 41. how rich a store-house it is 73 74. the writers of it what certainty we have who they were 69. proof of its Divine Authority to whom necessary 75 infallible assurance of that Authority by humane proof 8. that it is a Rule sufficient and infallible 129 130. three things observable in that Rule 129. its prerogative above general Councels 157. compared with Church-definitions 162. what assurance that we have the true sense of Scriptures Councels Fathers c. 215 216 c. some Books of Scripture anciently doubted of and some not Canonical received by some into the Canon 46 Separation Actual and Causal 92 93 for what one Church may lawfully Separate from another 90 94 95. Corruption in manners no sufficient cause of Separation 94 95. what Separation necessary 86 Sermons exalted to too great a height both by Jesuites and Precistans 64. their true worth and use ibid. Simanca his soul tenet concerning â—aith given to Hereticks 93 Sixtus Senensis his doubting of some of the Apocryphal Books received by the Councel of Trent 218 Socinianism the monster of Heresies 202 Archbishop of Spalato made to speak for Rome 231 Of the Private Spirit 46 47 161 Succession what a one a note of the Church 249 250 not to be found in Rome 251. Stapleton his inconstancy concerning it 250 T TEstimony of the Church whether Divine or Humane 39 The Testimony of it alone cannot make good the Infallibility of the Scripture 42 43 Theophilus of Alexandria his worth and his violent Spirit 115 Traditions what to be approved 29 30 34 43 44. Tradition and Scripture-proofs of the same things 38. is not a sufficient proof of Scripture 39 40. it and Gods unwritten Word not terms convertible 43 44. Tradition of the present Church what uses it hath 52 53 55 81. how it differeth from the Tradition of the Primitive Church 52 63. Tradition of the Church meer humane Authority 58. what Tradition the Fathers meant by saying we have the Scriptures by Tradition 66 67. Tradition Apostolical the necessity and use of it 66 67. Tradition how known before Scripture 77. what most likely to be a Tradition Apostolical 38 39. the danger of leaning too much upon Tradition 78. Against Transubstantiation 180 188 189 192 212. Suarez his plain confession that it is not of necessary belief 188. Cajetane and Alphonsus à Castro their opinion concerning it 221. Scandal taken by Averroes at the Doctrine of it 213. vid. Eucharist True and Right their difference 82 83 V VIctor Pope taxed by Irenaeus 118. Vincentius Lirinensis cleared 25 Union of Christendome how little regarded and how hindered by Rome 200 212 Unity the causes of the breaches thereof 235 c. Not that Unity in the Faith amongst the Romanists which they so much boast of 218 Universal Bishop a title condemned by S. Gregory yet usurped by his Successors 116 W WOrd of God that it may be written and unwritten 43. why written 44. uttered mediately or immediately 43. many of Gods unwritten Words not delivered to the Church 44 45 Vid. Scripture and Tradition Worth of men of what weight in proving truth 197 A Table of the places of Scripture which are explained or vindicated Genesis Cap. 1. vers 16. pag. 136. Deuteronomy Cap. 4. v. 2. p. 21. c. 13. v. 1 2 3. p. 69. c. 21. v. 19. 103. p. c. 17. v. 18. p. 135. 1 Samuel Chap. 3. v. 13. p. 103. c. 8. v. 3 5 ibid. 3 Kings Cap. 12. v. 27. p. 96. c. 13. v. 11. p. 194. c. 17. p. 193. c. 19. v. 18. p. 194. 4 Kings Cap. 3. p. 97 193. c. 23. p. 100. 135. 2 Chron. Cap. 29. v. 4. p. 100 135. Psalms Psal. 1. v. 2. p. 73. Proverbs Cap. 1. v. 8. c. 15. v. 20. c. 6. v. 20 22. p. 169 170. Isaiah Cap. 44. passim p. 71. c. 53. v. 1. p. 70. Jeremiah Cap. 2. v. 13. p. 219. c. 5. v. 31. p. 78. c. 20. v. 7. c. 38. v. 17. p. 70. S. Matthew Cap. 9. v. 12. p. 37. c. 12. v. 22 c. 16. v. 17. p. 50. c. 16. v. 18. p. 9 106. 123. 240. c. 16. v. 19. p. 47. c. 18. v. 18. p. 123. c. 18. v. 20. p. 152 154 c. 18. v. 17. p. 168 185. c. 22. v. 37 p. 236. c. 28. v. 19 20. p. 61 106. c. 28 v. 21. p. 106. c. 28. v. 29. p. 125. c. 28. v. 20. p. 151. c. 26. v. 27. p. 169. S. Mark Cap. 10. v. 14. p. 38. c. 13. v. 22. p. 69. S. Luke Cap. 10. v. 16. p. 61. c. 12. v. 48. p. 236. c. 22. v. 35. p. 30. c. 9. v. 23. p. 71. c. 22. v. 37. p. 100. c. 12. v. 32. p. 123 151. c. 24. v. 47. p. 104. S. John Cap. 5. v. 47. p. 79. c. 6. v. 70. p. 251. c. 9. v. 29. p. 79. c. 10. v. 4. p. 65. c. 10. v. 41. p. 70. c. 11. v. 42. p. 124. c. 14. v. 16. p. 62. 151. c. 14. v. 26. p. 107 151. c. 16 v. 13. p. 62 151. c. 16. v. 14. p. 151. c. 17. v. 3. p. 72. c. 19. v. 35. p. 69. c. 20. v. 22. p. 123. c. 21. v. 15. p. 30 125. c. 5. v. 31. p. 57. c. 2. v. 19. p. 105. Acts. Cap. 4. v. 12. p. 136. c. 6. v. 9. p. 82. c. 9. v. 29. c. 19. v. 17. p. 82. c. 11. v. 26. p. 103. c. 15. v. 28. p. 46 151 155 171. Romans Cap. 5. v. 15. p. 22. c. 1. v. 20. p. 29 72. c. 1. v. 8. p. 88. c. 1. v. 18. p. 222. c. 10. v. 10. p. 245. c. 10. v. 14 15. p. 231. c. 3. v. 4. p. 232. c. 11. v. 16. p. 91. c. 13. v. 1. p. 134 1 Corinth Cap. 1. v. 10. p. 235. c. 2. v. 11. p. 207. c. 3. v. 2. p. 125. c. 3. v. 11. p. 152. c. 2. v. 14. p. 48. c. 5. v. 5. p. 166. c. 11. v. 1. p. 61. c. 11. v. 23. p. 169. c. 11. v. 19. p. 235 236. c. 12. v. 3 4. p. 47. 12 10. p. 70. 12 28. p. 247. c. 13. v. 1. p. 134. Galath Cap. 3. v. 19. p. 43. Ephesians Cap. 2. v. 20. p. 152. c. 4. v. 11. p. 247. c. 4. v. 13. p. 248. c. 5. v. 2. p. 199. c. 5. v. 27. p. 169. 2 Thes. Cap. 2. p. 39. c. 2. v. 9. p. 70. c. 2. v. 15. p. 46. 1 Tim. Cap. 3. v. 15. p. 22. c.
Councel Decrees Now that Councel Decrees That Orders collated by the Bishop are not void though they be given without the consent or calling of the People or of any Secular Power And yet they can produce no Author that ever acknowledged this Definition of the Councel fundamental in the Faith 'T is true I do not grant that the Decrees of this Councel are made by full Authority of the Church but they do both grant and maintain it And therefore 't is Argumentum ad hominem a good argument against them that a thing so defined may be firm for so this is and yet not fundamental for so this is not Num. 15 But A. C. tells us further That if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may against another and another and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakned in any one cannot be firm in any other First A. C. might have acknowledged that he borrowed the former part of this out of Vincentius Lirinensis And as that Learned Father uses it I subscribe to it but not as A. C. applies it For Vincentius speaks there de Catholico Dogmate of Catholick Maximes and A. C. will force it to every Determination of the Church Now Catholike Maximes which are properly fundamental are certain prime truths deposited with the Church and not so much determined by the Church as published and manifested and so made firm by her to us For so Vincentius expresly Where all that the Church doth is but ut hoc idem quod anteà that the same thing may be believed which was before believed but with more light and clearness and in that sense with more firmness then before Now in this sense give way to a Disputator errans every Cavilling Disputer to deny or quarrel at the Maximes of Christian Religion any one or any part of any one of them and why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other till he have shaken all But this hinders not the Church her self nor any appointed by the Church to examine her own Decrees and to see that she keep Dogmata deposita the Principles of Faith unblemished and uncorrupted For if she do not so but that Novitia veteribus new Doctrines be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis the Repository of Verity may be changed in lupanar errorum I am loath to English it By the Church then this may nay it ought to be done however every wrangling Disputer may neither deny nor doubtfully dispute much less obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church no not where they are not Dogmata Deposita these deposited Principles But if he will be so bold to deny or dispute the Determinations of the Church yet that may be done without shaking the foundation where the Determinations themselves belong but to the fabrick and not to the foundation For a whole frame of Building may be shaken and yet the foundation where it is well laid remain firm And therefore after all A. C. dares not say the foundation is shaken but only in a sort And then 't is as true that in a sort it is not shaken Num. 16 2 For the second part of his Argument A. C. must pardon me if I dissent from him For first All Determinations of the Church are not made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation For some Determinations of the Church are made firm to us per chirographum Scripturae by the hand-writing of the Scripture and that 's Authentical indeed Some other Decisions yea and of the Church too are made or may be if Stapleton inform us right without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Writ But Bellarmine falls quite off in this and confesses in express terms That nothing can be certain by certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the Word of God or be deduced out of the Word of God by evident consequence And if nothing can be certain but so then certainly no Determination of the Church it self if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these either express Word of God or evident consequence out of it So here 's little agreement in this great Point between Stapleton and Bellarmine Nor can this be shifted off as if Stapleton spake of the Word of God Written and Bellarmine of the Word of God Unwritten as he calls Tradition For Bollarmine treats there of the knowledge which a man hath of the certainty of his own Salvation And I hope A. C. will not tell us there 's any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Therefore Bellarmine's whole Disputation there is quite beside the matter or else he must speak of the written Word and so lye cross to Stapleton as is mentioned But to return If A. C. will he may but I cannot believe that a Definition of the Church which is made by the express Word of God and another which is made without so much as a probable Testimony of it or a clear Deduction from it are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation Nay I must say in this case that the one Determination is firm by Divine Revelation but the other hath no Divine Revelation at all but the Churches Authority only ◠Secondly I cannot believe neither That all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the Power which it commits to General Councels lawfully called yet it is not always of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and integrity to apply Dogmata Fidei that which is Dogmatical in the Faith For instance I think you dare not deny but the Councel of Trent was lawfully called and yet I am of Opinion that few even of your selves believe that the Councel of Trent hath the same fulness with the Councel of Nice in all the forenamed kinds or degrees of fulness Thirdly suppose that all Determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation and sufficiently applied by one and the sante full Authority yet it will not follow that they are all alike fundamental in the Faith For I hope A. C. himself will not say that the Definitions of the Church are in better condition then the Propositions of Canonical Scripture Now all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are alike firm because they all alike proceed from Divine Revelation but they are not all alike fundamental in the Faith For this Proposition of Christ to S. Peter and S. Andrew
Follow me and I will make you fishers of men is as firm a truth as that which he delivered to his Disciples That he must die and rise again the third day For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation out of the mouth of our Saviour and both are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which receives the whole Gospel of S. Matthew to be Canonical and Infallible Scripture And yet both these Propositions of Christ are not alike fundamental in the Faith For I dare say No man shall be saved in the ordinary way of Salvation that believes not the Death and the Resurrection of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say that no man shall be saved into whose capacity it never came that Christ made S. Peter and Andrew fishers of men And yet should he say it nay should he shew it sub annulo Piscatoris no man will believe it that hath not made shipwrack of his common Notions Now if it be thus between Proposition and Proposition issuing out of Christ's own Mouth I hope it may well be so also between even Just and True Determinations of the Church that supposing them alike true and firm yet they shall not be alike fundamental to all mens belief F. Secondly I required to know what Points the Bishop would account Fundamental He said all the Points of the Creed were such B. § 11 Num. 1 Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Divine is governed about the Faith since your own Councel of Trent Decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that profess Christ do necessarily agree fundamentum firmum unicum not the firm alone but the only foundation since it is Excommunication ipso jure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole Body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was believ'd even before the coming of Christ though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessary for all mens Salvation are in the Creed and the Decalogue what reason can you have to except And yet for all this every thing fundamental is not of a like nearness to the foundation nor of equal primeness in the Faith And my granting the Creed to be fundamental doth not deny but that there are quaedam prima Credibilia certain prime Principles of Faith in the bosom whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up One of which since Christ is that of S. John Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the coming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must believe that God is and that be is a rewarder of them that seek him Num. 2 Here A. C. tells you That either I must mean that those points are only fundamental which are expressed in the Creed or those also which are infolded If I say those only which are expressed then saith he to believe the Scriptures is not fundamental because 't is not expressed If I say those which are infolded in the Articles then some unwritten Church-Traditions may be accounted fundamental The truth is I said and say still that all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are fundamental And therein I say no more then some of your best Learned have said before me But I never either said or meant that they only are fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum the only Foundation is the Councel of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Prime Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed And this agrees as before I told the Jesuite with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from that Proposition in terminis So here the very foundation of A. C ' Dilemma falls off For I say not That only the Points of the Creed are fundamental whether expressed or not expressed That all of them are that I say And yet though the foundation of his Dilemma be fallen away I will take the boldness to tell A. C. That if I had said that those Articles only which are expressed in the Creed are fundamental it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture upon which the Creed it self in every Point is grounded For nothing is supposed to shut out its own foundation And if I should now say that some Articles are fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were fundamental Some Traditions I deny not true and firm and of great both Authority and Use in the Church as being Apostolical but yet not fundamental in the Faith And it would be a mighty large fold which should lap up Traditions within the Creed As for that Tradition That the Books of holy Scriptures are Divine and Infallible in every part I will handle that when I come to the proper place for it F. I asked how then it happened as M. Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. § 12 Num. 1 The English Church never made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plain they bear thâ—â—â— meaning before them She was content to put that Artiâ—â—â— among those to which she requires Subscription not as doubting of the sense but to prevent the Cavils of some who had been too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Cross or but an Exposition of it Num. 2 And surely for my part I think the Church of England is better resolved of the right sense of this Article then the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meer Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is every where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England never doubted it and S. Augustine proves it Num. 3 And yet again you are different for the sense For you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his Death did go down into Hell really and was present there or vertually and by effects only For
Thomas holds the first and Durand the later Then you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and proved it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but vertually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himself and gives his reason because it is the common Opinion of the School Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without farther Dispute and in that sense which the ancient Primitive Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolved in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawful for them to say I conceive thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I deny it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The Bishop said That M. Rogers was but a private man But said I if M. Rogers writing as he did by publike Authority be accounted onely a private man c. B. § 13 Num. 1 I said truth when I said M. Rogers was a private man And I take it you will not allow every speech of every 〈…〉 though allowed by Authority to have his Books Printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath been oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens assertions upon the Church yet I see you mean not to leave it And surely as Controversies are now handled by some of your party at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand But I have long thought it a kinde of descent into Hell to be conversant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seek to blinde the People or cast a mist before evident Truth lest it cause a final descent to that place of Torment But since you will hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than M. Rogers his Exposition or Notes upon the Articles of the Church of England is with us And as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Stapleton affirms The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie over the whole Church Shall he have his power over the Catholike Church given him expresly in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he had fed to Confirm and in all these not to erre and fail in his Ministration And is the Catholike Church in and over which he is to do all these great things quite left out of the Scripture Belike the Holy Ghost was careful to give him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if he could so prescribe for what he now Claims Num. 2 But what if after all this M. Rogers there says no such thing As in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge He descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And again Till we know the native and undoubted sense of this Article is M. Rogers We the Church of England or rather his and some others Judgment in the Church of England Num. 3 Now here A. C. will have somewhat again to say though God knows 't is to little purpose 'T is that the Jesuit urged M. Roger's Book because it was set out by Publike Authority And because the Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England A. C. may undoubtedly urge M. Rogers if he please But he ought not to say that his Opinion is the Doctrine of the Church of England for neither of the Reasons by him expressed First not because his Book was publikely allowed For many Books among them as well as among us have been Printed by publike Authority as containing nothing in them contrary to Faith and good manners and yet containing many things in them of Opinion only or private Judgment which yet is far from the avowed Positive Doctrine of the Church the Church having as yet determined neither way by open Declaration upon the words or things controverted And this is more frequent among their School-men than among any of our Controversers as is well known Nor secondly because his Book bears the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England For suppose the worst and say M. Rogers thought a little too well of his own pains and gave his Book too high a Title is his private Judgment therefore to be accounted the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England Surely no No more than I should say every thing said by Thomas or Bonaventure is Angelical or Seraphical Doctrine because one of these is stiled in the Church of Rome Seraphical and the other Angetical Doctor And yet their works are Printed by Publike Authority and that Title given them Num. 4 Yea but our private Authors saith A. C. are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sort to express our Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question Here are two Limitations which will go far to bring A. C. off whatsoever I shall say against him For first let me instance in any private man that takes as much upon him as M. Rogers doth he will say he know it not his Assertion here being no other then for ought he knows Secondly If he be unwilling to acknowledge so much yet he will answer 't is not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth it that is perhaps it is not the very Title of his Book But well then Is there never a Private man allowed in the Church of Rome to express your Catholike Doctrine in any matter subject to Question What Not in any matter Were not Vega and Soto two private men Is it not a matter subject to Question to great Question in these Days Whether a man may be certain of his being in the state of Salvation certitudine fidei by the certainty of Faith Doth not Bellarmine make it a Controversie And is it not a part of your Catholike Faith if it be determined in the Councel of Trent And yet these two great Fryers of their time Dominicus Soto and Andreas Vega were of contrary Opinions and both of them challenged the Decree of the Councel and so consequently your Catholike Faith to be as each of
England are grounded upon Scripture we are content to be judged by the joynt and constant Belief of the Fathers which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ when the Church was at the best and by the Councels held within those times and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine Therefore we desire not to be Judges in our own Cause And if any whom A. C. calls a Novellist can truly say and maintain this he will quickly prove himself no Novellist And for the Negative Articles they refute where the thing affirmed by you is either not affirmed in Scripture or not directly to be concluded out of it Upon this Negative ground A. C. infers again That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it In which case he professes he would gladly know what can be answered to defend this doctrine to be a Point of Faith necessary for the salvation of Infants And in Conclusion professes he cannot easily guess what answer can be made unless we will acknowledge Authority of Church-Tradition necessary in this Case Num. 3 And truly since A. C. is so desirous of an Answer I will give it freely And first in the General I am no way satisfied with A. C. his Addition not expresly at least not evidently what means he If he speak of the Letter of the Scripture then whatsoever is expresly is evidently in the Scripture and so his Addition is vain If he speak of the Meaning of the Scripture then his Addition is cunning For many things are Expresly in Scripture which yet in their Meaning are not evidently there And what e're he mean my words are That our Negative Articles refute that which is not affirmed in Scripture without any Addition of Expresly or Evidently And he should have taken my words as I used them I lke nor Change nor Addition nor am I bound to either of A. C's making And I am as little satisfied with his next Addition nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it For are there not many things in Good Logick concluded directly which yet are not concluded Demonstratively Surely there are For to be directly or indirectly concluded flows from the Mood or Form of the Syllogism To be demonstratively concluded flows from the Matter or Nature of the Propositions If the Propositions be Prime and necessary Truths the Syllogism is demonstrative and scientifical because the Propositions are such If the Propositions be probable only though the Syllogism be made in the clearest Mood yet is the Conclusion no more The Inference or Consequence indeed is clear and necessary but the Consequent is but probable or topical as the Propositions were Now my words were only for a Direct Conclusion and no more though in this case I might give A. C. his Caution For Scripture here is the thing spoken of And Scripture being a Principle and every Text of Scripture confessedly a Principle among all Christians whereof no man desires any farther proof I would fain know why that which is plainly and apparently that is by direct Consequence proved out of Scripture is not Demonstratively or Scientifically proved If at least he think there can be any Demonstration in Divinity and if there can be none why did he add Demonstratively Num. 4 Next in particular I answer to the Instance which A. C. makes concerning the Baptism of Infants That it may be concluded directly and let A. C. judge whether not demonstratively out of Scripture both that Infants ought to be baptized and that Baptism is necessary to their Salvation And first that Baptism is necessary to the Salvation of Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without binding God to the use and means of that Sacrament to which he hath bound us is express in S. John 3. Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God So no Baptism no Entrance Nor can Infants creep in any other ordinary way And this is the received Opinion of all the Ancient Church of Christ. And secondly That Infants ought to be baptized is first plain by Evident and Direct Consequence out of Scripture For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church but by Baptism and this appear in Scripture as it doth then out of all Doubt the Consequence is most evident out of that Scripture That Infants are to be baptized that their Salvation may be certain For they which cannot help themselves must not be left only to Extraordinary Helps of which we have no assurance and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture while we in the mean time neglect the ordinary way and means commanded by Christ Secondly 't is very near an Expression in Scripture it self For when S. Peter had ended that great Sermon of his Act. 2. he applies two comforts unto them Verse 38. Amend your lives and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost And then Verse 39. he infers For the promise is made to you and to your children The Promise What Promise What Why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost By what means Why by Baptism For 't is expresly Be baptized and ye shall receive And as expresly This promise is made to you and to your Children And therefore A. C. may finde it if he will That the Baptism of Infants may be directly concluded out of Scripture For some of his own Party Ferus and Salmeron could both find it there And so if it will do him any pleasure he hath my Answer which he saith he would be glad to know Num. 5 'T is true Bellarmine presses a main place out of S. Augustine and he urges it hard S. Augustine's words are The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing Infants is by no means to be contemned or thought superfluous nor yet at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolâ—cal Tradition The place is truly cited but seems a great deal stronger than indeed it is For first 't is not denied That this is an Apostolical Tradition and therefore to be believed But secondly not therefore only Nor doth S. Augustine say so nor doth Bellarmine press it that way The truth is it would have been somewhat difficult to find the Collection out of Scripture only for the Baptism of Infants since they do not actually believe And therefore S. Augustine is at nec credenda nisi that this Custom of the Church had not been to be believed had it not been an Apostolical Tradition But the Tradition being Apostolical led on the Church easily to see the necessary Deduction out of Scripture And this is not the least use of Tradition to lead the Church into the true meaning of those things which are found in Scripture though
not obvious to every eye there And that this is S. Augustine's meaning is manifest by himself who best knew it For when he had said as he doth That to baptize children is Antiqua fidei Regula the Ancient Rule of Faith and the constant Tenet of the Church yet he doubts not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also For when Pelagius urged That Infants needed not to be baptized because they had no Original Sin S. Augustine relies not upon the Tenet of the Church only but argues from the Text thus What need have Infants of Christ if they be not sick For the sound need not the Physitian S. Mat. 9. And again is not this said by Pelagins ut non accedaent ad Jesum That Infants may not come to their Saviour Sed clamat Jesus but Jesus cries out Suffer Little ones to come unto me S. Mar. 10. And all this is fully acknowledged by Calvine Namely That all men acknowledge the Baptism of Infants to descend from Apostolical Tradition And yet that it doth not depend upon the bare and naked Authority of the Church Which he speaks not in regard of Tradition but in relation to such proof as is to be made by necessary Consequence out of Scripture over and above Tradition As for Tradition I have said enough for that and as much as A. C. where 't is truly Apostolical And yet if any thing will please him I will add this concerning this particular The Baptizing of Infants That the Church received this by Tradition from the Apostles By Tradition And what then May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture because it was delivered to the Church by way of Tradition I hope A. C. will never say so For certainly in Doctrinal things nothing so likely to be a Tradition Apostolical as that which hath a root and a Foundation in Scripture For Apostles cannot write or deliver contrary but subordinate and subservient things F. I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are balieved to be Scripture yet not proved out of any Place of Scripture The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be proved B. § 16 Num. 1 I did never love too curious a search into that which might put a man into a wheel and circle him so long between proving Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture till the Devil find a means to dispute him into Infidelity and make him believe neither I hope this is no part of your meaning Yet I doubt this Question How do you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harm than you will be ever able to help by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted upon by you and is in it self a matter of such Consequence I will sift it a little farther Num. 2 Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Divinity have used divers means to prove it All have not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolve Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into only Tradition For only and no other proof are equal To prove the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God there are several Offers at divers proofs For first some fly to the Testimony and witness of the Church and her Tradition which constantly believes and unanimously delivers it Secondly some to the Light and the Testimony which the Scripture gives to it self with other internal proofs which are observed in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoever Thirdly some to the Testimony of the Holy Ghost which clears up the light that is in Scripture and seals this Faith to the Souls of men that it is Gods Word Fourthly all that have not imbrutished themselves and sunk below their species and order of Nature give even Natural Reason leave to come in and make some proof and give some approbation upon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments And this must be admitted if it be but for Pagans and Insidels who either consider not or value not any one of the other three yet must some way or other be converted or left without excuse Rom. 1. and that is done by this very evidence Num. 3 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church which is your way That taken and considered alone it is so far from being the only that it cannot be a sufficient Proof to believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God For that which is a full and sufficient proof is able of it self to settle the Soul of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to do this For it may be further asked Why we should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered We may believe Because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded of you How that may appear And if this be demanded either you must say you have it by special Revelation which is the private Spirit you object to other men or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture as all of you do And that very offer to prove it out of Scripture is a sufcient acknowledgment that the Scripture is a higher Proof than the Churches Tradition which in your Grounds is or may be Questionable till you come thither Besides this is an Inviolable ground of Reason That the Principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit than the Conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles of Faith The Trinity the Resurrection and the rest be the Conclusions and the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible than the Articles of the Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally Resolved into the Veracity of the Churches Testimony But this your Learned and wary men deny And therefore I hope your self dare not affirm Num. 4 Again if the Voyce of the Church saying the Books of Scripture commonly received are the Word of God be the formal Object of Faith upon which alone absolutely I may resolve my self then every man not only may but ought to resolve his Faith into the Voyce or Tradition of the Church for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and formal Object of the Faith But nothing can be more evident than this That a man ought not to resolve his Faith of this Principle into the sole Testimony of the Church Therefore neither is that Testimony or Tradition alone the formal Object of Faith The Learned of your own part grant this Although in that Article of the Creed I believe the Catholike Church
them very deservedly And were these Texts more void of Truth than they are yet it were fit and reasonable to uphold their credit that Novices and young Beginners in a Science which are not able to work strongly upon Reason nor Reason upon them may have Authority to believe till they can learn to Conclude from Principles and so to know Is this also reasonable in other Sciences and shall it not be so in Theology to have a Text a Scripture a Rule which Novices may be taught first to believe that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things which out of this rich Principle and Treasure are Deduceable I yet see not how right Reason can deny these Grounds and if it cannot then a meer Natural man may be thus far convinced That the Text of God is a very Credible Text. Num. 19 Well these are the four ways by most of which men offer to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God as by a Divine and Infallible Warrant And it seems no one of these doth it alone The Tradition of the present Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine The Light which is in Scripture it self is not bright enough it cannot bear sufficient witness to it self The Testimony of the Holy Ghost that is most infallible but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question which is not how or by what means we believe but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible Object fit for Belief And for Reason no man expects that that should prove it it doth service enough if it enable us to disprove that which misguided men conceive against it If none of these then be an Absolute and sufficient means to prove it either we must find out another or see what can be more wrought out of these And to all this again A. C. says nothing For the Tradition of the Church then certain it is we must distinguish the Church before we can judge right of the Validity of the Tradition For if the speech be of the Prime Christian Church the Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven no question but the Voyce and Tradition of this Church is Divine not aliquo modo in a sort but simply and the Word of God from them is of like Validity written or delivered And against this Tradition of which kind this That the Books of Scripture are the Word of God is the most general and uniform the Church of England never excepted And when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholike Church moved me which Place you urged at the Conference though you are now content to slide by iâ— some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in General not excluding after-ages But sure to include Christ and his Apostles And the certainty is there abundance of certainty in it self but how far that is evident to us shall after appear Num. 21 But this will not serve your turn The Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive But the contrary to this is proved before because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Divine To what end then serves any Tradition of the present Church To what Why to a very good end For first it serves by a full consent to work upon the minds of unbelievers to move them to read and to consider the Scripture which they hear by so many Wise Learned and Devouâ— men is of no meaner esteem than the Word of God And secondly It serves among Novices Weakings and Doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirm them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scripture which the Church delivers as the Word of God And thus again some of your own understand the fore-cited Place of St. Augustine I would not believe the Gospel c. For he speaks it either of Novices or Doubters in the Faith or else of such as were in part Infidels You at the Conference though you omit it here would needs have it that S. Augustine spake even of the faithful which I cannot yet think For he speaks to the Manichees and they had a great part of the Infidel in them And the words immediately before these are If thou shouldest â—ind one Qui Evangelio nondum credit which did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldest thou do to make him believe Ego verò non Truly I would not c. So to these two ends it serves and there need be no Question between us But then every thing that is the first Inducer to believe is not by and by either the Principal Motive or the chief and last Object of Belief upon which a man may rest his Faith Unless we shall be of Jacobuâ— Almain's Opinion That we are per priâ—â— magis first and more bound to believe the Church than the Gospel Which your own Learned men as you may see by â— Mel. Canus reject as Extreme â—oul and so indeed it is The first knowledge then after the Quid Nominâ—â— is known by Grammar that helps to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to Demonstrate a Truth and make it evident is his Logick But when he hath made a Demonstration he resolves the knowledge of his Conclusion not into his Grammatical or Logical Principles but into the Immediate Principles out of which it is deduced So in thiâ— Particular a man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading Means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God but when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with it self and with other Writings with the help of Ordinary Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the Voyce of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it self then Tradition alone could give And then he that Believes resolves his last and full Assent That Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self though found by the Help and Direction of Tradition without and Grace within And the resolution that is rightly grounded may not endure to pitch and rest it self upon the Helps but upon that Divine Light which the Scripture no Question hath in it self but is not kindled till these Helps come Thy Word is a Light so David A Light Therefore it is as much manifestatiâ—um sui as alâ—eriâ—s a manifestation to it self as to other things which it shews but still not till the Candle be Lighted not till there hath been a Preparing Instruction What Light it is Children call the Sun and Moon Candles Gods Candles They see the light as well as men but cannot distinguish between them
ordinarily have Tradition to prepare the mind of a man to receive it And in the next place where he speaks so sensibly That Scripture cannot bear witness to it self nor one part of it to another that is grounded upon Nature which admits no created thing to be witness to it self and is acknowledged by our Saviour If I bear witness to my self my witness is not true that is is not of force to be reasonably accepted for Truth But then it is more than manifest that Hooker delivers his Demonstration of Scripture alone For if Scripture hath another proof nay many other proofs to usher it and lead it in then no Question it can both prove and approve it self His words are So that unless besides Scripture there be c. Besides Scripture therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another Proof to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition which no man that hath his brains about him denies In the two other Places Brierly falsifies shamefully for folding up all that Hooker says in these words This other means to assure us besides Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church he wrinkles that Worthy Author desperately and shrinks up his meaning For in the former place abused by Brierly no man can set a better state of the Question between Scripture and Tradition than Hooker doth His words are these The Scripture is the ground of our Belief The Authority of man that is the Name he gives to Tradition is the Koy which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture I ask now When a man is entred and hath viewed a house and upon viewing likes it and upon liking resolves unchangeably to dwell there doth he set up his Resolution upon the Key that let him in No sure but upon the Goodness and Commodiousness which he sees in the House And this is all the difference that I know between us in this Point In which do you grant as you ought to do that we resolve our Faith into Scripture as the Ground and we will never deny that Tradition is the Key that lets us in In the latter place Hooker is as plain as constant to himself and Truth His words are The first outward Motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church c. But afterwards the more we bestow our Labour in reading or learning the Mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther Reason Here then again in his Judgment Tradition is the first Inducement but the farther Reason and Ground is the Scripture And Resolution of Faith ever settles upon the Farthest Reason it can not upon the First Inducement So that the State of this Question is firm and yet plain enough to him that will not shut his eyes Num. 26 Now here after a long silence A. C. thrusts himself in again and tells me That if I would consider the Tradition of the Church not only as it is the Tradition of a Company of Fallible men in which sense the Authority of it as himself confesses is but Humane and Fallible c. But as the Tradition of a Company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit in that sense I might easily sinde it more than an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Well I have considered The Tradition of the present Church both these ways And I find that A. C. confesses That in the first sense the Tradition of the Church is meer humane Authority and no more And therefore in this sense it may serve for an Introduction to this Belief but no more And in the second sense as it is not the Tradition of a Company of men only but of men assisted by Christ and His Spirit In this second sense I cannot finde that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority till A. C. can prove That this Company of men the Roman Prelates and their Clergy he means are so fully so clearly so permanently assisted by Christ and his Spirit as may reach to Infallibility to a Divine Infallibility in this or any other Principle which they teach For every Assistance of Christ and the Blessed Spirit is not enough to make the Authority of any Company of men Divine and infallible but such and so great an Assistance only as is purposely given to that effect Such an Assistance the Prophets under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New had but neither the High-Priest with his Clergy in the Old nor any Company of Prelates or Priests in the New since the Apostles ever had it And therefore though at the intreaty of A. C. I have considered this very well yet I cannot no not in this Assisted sense think the Tradition of the present Church Divine and Infallible or such Company of men to be worthy of Divine and infallible Credit and sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Which I am sorry A. C. should affirm so boldly as he doth What That Company of men the Roman Bishop and his Clergy of Divine and Infallible Credit and sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Good God! Whither will these men go Surely they are wise in their generation but that makes them never a whit the more the Children of Light S. Luk. 16. And could they put this home upon the world as they are gone far in it what might they not effect How might they and would they then Lord it over the Faith of Christendom contrary to S. Peters Rule whose Successors certainly in this they are not But I pray if this Company of men be infallibly assisted whence is it that this very Company have erred so dangerously as they have not only in some other things but even in this Particular by equaling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God Which is a Doctrine unknown to the Primitive Church and which frets upon the very Foundation it self by justling with it So belike he that hath but half an indifferent eye may see this Assisted Company have erred and yet we must wink in obedience and think them Infallible Num. 27 But A. C. would have me consider again That it is as easie to take the Tradition of the present Church in the two fore-named senses as the present Scriptures printed and approved by men of this Age. For in the first sense The very Scriptures saith he considered as printed and approved by men of this Age can be no more than of Humane Credit But in the second sense as printed and approved by men assisted by God's Spirit for true Copies of that which was first written then we may give Infallible Credit to them Well I
have considered this too And I can take the Printing and Approving the Copies of Holy-Writ in these two senses And I can and do make a difference between Copies printed and approved by meer moral men and men assisted by Gods Spirit And yet for the Printing only a skilful and an able moral man may do better service to the Church than an illiterate man though assisted in other things by God's Spirit But when I have considered all this what then The Scripture being put in writing is a thing visibly existent and if any error be in the Print 't is easily corrigible by former Copies Tradition is not so easily observed nor so safely kept And howsoever to come home to that which A. C. infers upon it namely That the Tradition of the present Church may be accepted in these two senses And if this be all that he will infer for his pen here is troubled and forsakes him whether by any check of Conscience or no I know not I will and you see have granted it already without more ado with this Caution That every Company of men assisted by Gods Spirit are not assisted to this height to be Infallible by Divine Authority Num. 28 For all this A. C. will needs give a needless Proof of the Business Namely That there is the Promise of Christs and his Holy Spirits continual presence and assistance S. Luke 10. 16. Mat. 28. 19 20. Joh. 14. 16. not only to the Apostles but to their Successors also the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all Ages And that this Promise is no less but rather more expresly to them in their Preaching by word of mouth than in writing or reading or printing or approving of Copies of what was formerly written by the Apostles And to all this I shall briefly say That there is a Promise of Christ's and the Holy Spirits continual presence and assistance I do likewise grant most freely that this Promise is on the part of Christ and the Holy Ghost most really and fully performed But then this Promise must not be extended further than 't was made It was made of Continual presence and assistance That I grant and it was made to the Apostles and their Successors That I grant too But in a different Degree For it was of Continual and Infallible Assistance to the Apostles But to their Successors of Continual and fitting assistance but not Infallible And therefore the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all Ages have had and shall have Continual Assistance but by A. C's leave not Infallible at least not Divine and Infallible either in writing reading printing or approving Copies And I believe A. C. is the first that durst affirm this I thought he would have kept the Popes Prerogative intire that He only might have been Infallible and not He neither but in Cathedrâ sate down and well advised And well advised Yes that 's right But he may be sate and not well Advised even in Cathedrâ And Now shall we have all the Lawfully sent Pasters and Doctors of that Church in all ages Infallible too Here 's a deal of Infallibility indeed and yet error store The truth is the Jesuites have a Moneths mind to this Infallibility And though A. C. out of his bounty is content to extend it to all the lawfully sent Pastors of the Church yet to his own Society questionless he means it chiefly As did the Apologist to whom Casaubon replies to Fronto Ducaeus The words of the Apologist are Let day and night life and death be joyned together and then there will be some hope that Heresle may fall upon the person of a Jesuite Yea marry this is something indeed Now we know where Infallibility is to be found But for my present Occasion touching the Lawfully sent Pastors of the Church c. I will give no other Confutation of it then that M. Fisher and A. C. if they be two men are lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church at least I am sure they 'll assume they are and yet they are not Infallible which I think appears plain enough in some of their errors manifested by this Discourse and elsewhere Or if they do hold themselves infallible let them speak it out as the Apologist did Num. 29 As for the Three Places of Scripture which A. C. cites they are of old alledged and well known in this Controversie The First is in S. Luke 10. where Christ saith He that heareth you heareth me This was absolutely true in the Apostles who kept themselves to that which was reavealed by Christ. But it was to be but Conditionally true in their Successors He that heareth you heareth me That is so long and so far as you speak my words and not your own For where the Command is for Preaching the Restraint is added Go saith Christ and teach all Nations But you may not preach all things what you please but all things which I have commanded you The Publication is yours the Doctrine is mine And where the Doctrine is not mine there your Publication is beyond or short of your Commission The Second Place is in S. Mat. 28. There Christ says again I am with you always unto the end of the world Yes most certain it is present by his Spirit For else in bodily presence He continued not with his Apostles but during his abode on Earth And this Promise of his Spiritual Presence was to their Successors else why to the end of the World The Apostles did not could not live so long But then to the Successors the Promise goes no farther then I am with you always which reaches to continual assistance but not to Divine and Infallible Or if he think me mistaken let him shew me any One Father of the Church that extends the sense of this Place to Divine and Infallible Assistance granted hereby to all the Apostles Successors Sure I am Saint Gregory thought otherwise For he says plainly That in those Gifts of God which concern other mens salvation of which Preaching of the Gospel is One the Spirit of Christ the Holy Ghost doth not always abide in the Preachers be they never so lawfully sent Pastors or Doctors of the Church And if the Holy Ghost doth not always abide in the Preachers then most certainly he doth not abide in them to a Divine Infallibility always The Third Place is in S. John 14 where Christ says The Comforter the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever Most true again For the Holy Ghost did abide with the Apostles according to Christs Promise there made and shall abide with their Successors for ever to comfort and preserve them But here 's no Promise of Divine Infallibility made unto them And for that Promise which is made and expresly of Infallibility Saint John 16. though not cited by A. C. That 's confined
to the Apostles only for the setling of them in all Truth And yet not simply all For there are some Truths saith Saint Augustine which no mans Soul can comprehend in this life Not simply all But all those Truths quae non poterant portare which they were not able to bear when He Conversed with them Not simply all but all that was necessary for the Founding propagating establishing and Confirming the Christian Church But if any man take the boldness to inlarge this Promise in the fulness of it beyond the persons of the Apostles themselves that will fall out which Saint Augustine hath in a manner prophecied Every Heretick will shelter himself and his Vanities under this Colour of Infallible Verity Num. 30 I told you a little before that A. C. his Pen was troubled and failed him Therefore I will help to make out his Inference for him that his Cause may have all the strength it can And as I conceive this is that he would have The Tradition of the present Church is as able to work in us Divine and Infallible Faith That the Scripture is the Word of God As that the Bible or Books of Scripture now printed and in use is a true Copy of that which was first written by the Pen-men of the Holy Ghost and delivered to the Church 'T is most true the Tradition of the present Church is alike operative and powerful in and over both these works but neither Divine nor Infallible in either But as it is the first moral Inducement to perswade that Scripture is the Word of God so is it also the first but moral still that the Bible we now have is a true Copy of that which was first written But then as in the former so in this latter for the true Copy The last Resolution of our Faith cannot possibly rest upon the naked Tradition of the present Church but must by and with it go higher to other Helps and Assurances Where I hope A. C. will confess we have greater helps to discover the truth or falshood of a Copy than we have means to look into a Tradition Or especially to sift out this Truth That it was a Divine and Infallible Revelation by which the Originals of Scripture were first written That being far more the Subject of this Inquiry than the Copy which according to Art and Science may be examined by former preceding Copies close up to the very Apostles times Num. 31 But A. C. hath not done yet For in the last place he tells us That Tradition and Scripture without any vicious Circle do mutually confirm the Authority either of other And truly for my part I shall easily grant him this so he will grant me this other Namely That though they do mutually yet they do not equally confirm the Authority either of other For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the Authority of Church-Traditions truly so called But Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the Authority of the Scripture And this is manifest by A. C.'s own Similitude For saith he 't is as a Kings Embassadors word of mouth and His Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other Just so indeed For His Kings Letters of Credence under hand and seal confirm the Embassadors Authority Infallibly to all that know Seal and hand But the Embassadors word of mouth confirms His Kings Letters but only probably For else Why are they called Letters of Credence if they give not him more Credit than he can give them But that which follows I cannot approve to wit That the Lawfully sent Preachers of the Gospel are Gods Legats and the Scriptures Gods Letters which he hath appointed his Legates to deliver and expound So far 't is well but here 's the sting That these Letters do warrant that the People may hear and give Credit to these Legates of Christ as to Christ the King himself Soft this is too high a great deal No Legate was ever of so great Credit as the King himself Nor was any Priest never so lawfully sent ever of that Authority that Christ himself No sure For ye call me Master and Lord and ye do well for so I am saith our Saviour S. John 13. And certainly this did not suddenly drop out of A. C's Pen. For he told us once before That this Company of men which deliver the present Churches Tradition that is the lawfully sent Preachers of the Church are assisted by Gods Spirit to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Why but is it possible these men should go thus far to defend an Error be it never so dear unto them They as Christ Divine and Infallible Authority in them Sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith I have often heard some wise men say That the Jesuite in the Church of Rome and the Precise party in the Reformed Churches agree in many things though they would seem most to differ And surely this is one For both of them differ extremely about Tradition The one in magnifying it and exalting it into Divine Authority the other vilifying and depressing it almost beneath Humane And yet even in these different ways both agree in this Consequent That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth of the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church are able to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Nay are the very word of God So A. C. expresly And no less then so have some accounted of their own factious words to say no more than as the Word of God I ever took Sermons and so do still to be most necessary Expositions and Applications of Holy Scripture and a great ordinary means of saving knowledge But I cannot think them or the Preachers of them Divinely Infallible The Ancient Fathers of the Church preached far beyond any of these of either faction And yet no one of them durst think himself Infallible much less that whatsoever he preached was the Word of God And it may be Observed too That no men are more apt to say That all the Fathers were but Men and might Erre than they that think their own preachings are Infallible Num. 32 The next thing after this large Interpretation of A. C. which I shall trouble you with is That this method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God which I here use is the same which the Ancient Church ever held namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other Arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self This way the Church went in S. Augustine's Time He was no enemy to church-Church-Tradition yet when he would prove that the Author of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Divinity as it is supernatural is Deus in Christo God in Christ he takes this as the All-sufficient way and gives
four proofs all internal to the Scripture First The Miracles Secondly That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine Thirdly That there hath been such performance of it Fourthly That by such a Doctrine of Humility the whole world almost hath been converted And whereas à d muniendam Fidem for the Defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lirinens places Authority of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparent that Tradition is first in order of time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of Nature that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self And your own School confesses this was the way ever The Woman of Samaria is a known Resemblance but allowed by your selves For quotidiè daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman that is the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives c. But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe his word before the words of the Woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus the School taught then and thus the Gloss commented then And when men have tired themselves hither they must come The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures even to this knowledge of them That they are the Word of God is the Tradition of the Church but when they are in They hear Christ himself immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithful And his sheep do not only hear but know his voice And then here 's no vicious Circle indeed of proving the Scripture by the Church and then round about the Church by the Scripture Only distinguish the Times and the Conditions of men and all is safe For a Beginner in the Faith or a Weakling or a Doubter about it begins at Tradition and proves Scripture by the Church But a man strong and grown up in the Faith and understandingly conversant in the Word of God proves the Church by the Scripture And then upon the matter we have a double Divine Testimonie altogether Infallible to confirm unto us That Scripture is the Word of God The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselves who delivered immediately to the world the Word of Christ. The other the Scripture it self but after it hath received this Testimonie And into these we do and may safely Resolve our Faith As for the Tradition of after-Ages in and about which Miracles and Divine Power were not so evident we believë them by Gandavo's full Confession because they do not preach other things than those former the Apostles left in scriptis certissimis in most certain Scripture And it appears by men in the middle Ages that these writings were vitiated in nothing by the concordant consent in them of all succeeders to our own time Num. 33 And now by this time it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers which seem to speak differently in no few places both one from another and the same from themselves touching Scripture and Tradition And that as well in this Point to prove Scripture to be the Word of God as for concordant Exposition of Scripture in all things else When therefore the Fathers say We have the Scriptures by Tradition or the like either They mean the Tradition of the Apostles themselves delivering it and there when it is known to be such we may resolve our Faith Or if they speak of the Present Church then they mean that the Tradition of it is that by which we first receive the Scripture as by an according Means to the Prime Tradition But because it is not simply Divine we cannot resolve our Faith into it nor settle our Faith upon it till it resolve it self into the Prime Tradition of the Apostles or the Scripture or both and there we rest with it And you cannot shew an ordinary consent of Fathers Nay can you or any of your Quarter shew any one Father of the Church Greek or Latine that ever said We are to resolve our Faith that Scripture is the Word God into the Tradition of the present Church And again when the Fathers say we are to rely upon Scripture only they are never to be understood with Exclusion of Tradition in what causes soever it may be had Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient in and to it self for all things but because it is deep and may be drawn into different senses and so mistaken if any man will presume upon his own strength and go single without the Church Num. 34 To gather up whatsoever may seem scattered in this long Discourse to prove That Scripture is the Word of God I shall now in the Last place put all together that so the whole state of the Question may the better appear First then I shall desire the Reader to consider that every Rational Science requires some Principles quite without its own Limits which are not proved in that Science but presupposed Thus Rhetorick presupposes Grammar and Musick Arithmetick Therefore it is most reasonable that Theology should be allowed to have some Principles also which she proves not but presupposes And the chiefest of these is That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority Secondly that there is a great deal of difference in the Manner of confirming the Principles of Divinity and those of any other Art or Science whatsoever For the Principles of all other Sciences do finally resolve either into the Conclusions of some Higher Science or into those Principles which are per se nota known by their own light and are the Grounds and Principles of all Science And this is it which properly makes them Sciences because they proceed with such strength of Demonstration as forces Reason to yeeld unto them But the Principles of Divinity resolve not into the Grounds of Natural Reason For then there would be no room for Faith but all would be either Knowledge or Vision but into the Maximes of Divine Knowledge supernatural And of this we have just so much light and no more than God hath revealed unto us in the Scripture Thirdly That though the Evidence of these Supernatural Truths which Divinity teaches appears not so manifest as that of the Natural yet they are in themselves much more sure and infallible than they For they proceed immediately from God that Heavenly Wisdom which being the fountain of ours must needs infinitely precede ours both in Nature and excellence He that teacheth man knowledge shall not be know Psal. 94. And therefore though we reach not the Order of their Deductions nor can in this life come to the vision of them
erred in such a Point of Divine Truth and of Faith Nay A. C. confesses expresly in his very next words That the Whole Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture and otherwise So then in A. C's judgment the Whole Militant Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths Now that which knows not all must be ignorant of some and that which is ignorant of some may possibly erre in one Point or other The rather because he confesses the knowledge of it must be got by Learning and Learners may mistake and erre especially where the Lesson is Divine Truth out of Scripture out of Difficult Scripture For were it of plain and easie Scripture that he speaks the Whole Church could not at any time be without the knowledge of it And for ought I yet see the Whole Church Militant hath no greater warrant against Not erring in than against Not knowing of the Points of Divine Truth For in 8. John 16. There is as large a Promise to the Church of knowing all Points of Divine Truth as A. C. or any Jesuite can produce for Her Not erring in any And if She may be ignorant or mistaken in learning of any Point of Divine Truth Doubtless in that state of Ignorance she may both Erre and teach her Error yea and teach that to be Divine Truth which is not Nay perhaps teach that as a Matter of Divine Truth which is contrary to Divine Truth Always provided it be not in any Point simply Fundamental of which the Whole Catholike Church cannot be Ignorant and in which it cannot Erre as hath before been proved Num. 5 As for the Places of Scripture which A. C. cites to prove that the Whole Church cannot Erre Generally in any one Point of Divine Truth be it Fundamental or not they are known Places all of them and are alledged by A. C. three several times in this short Tract and to three several purposes Here to prove That the Universal Church cannot Erre Before this to prove that the Tradition of the present Church cannot Erre After this to prove that the Pope cannot Erre He should have done well to have added these Places a fourth time to prove that General Councels cannot Erre For so doth both Stapleton and Bellarmine Sure A. C. and his fellows are hard driven when they must fly to the same Places for such different purposes For A Pope may Erre where a Councel doth not And a General Councel may Erre where the Catholike Church cannot And therefore it is not likely that these places should serve alike for all The first Place is Saint Matthew 16. There Christ told Saint Peter and we believe it most assuredly That Hell-Gates shall never be able to prevail against his church But that is That they shall not prevail to make the Church Catholike Apostatize and fall quite away from Christ or Erre in absolute Fundamentals which amounts to as much But the Promise reaches not to this that the Church shall never Erre no not in the lightest matters of Farth For it will not follow Hell-Gates shall not prevail against the Church Therefore Hellish Devils shall not tempt or assault and batter it And thus Saint Augustine understood the place It may fight yea and be wounded too but it cannot be wholly overcome And Bellarmine himself applies it to prove That the Visible Church of Christ cannot deficere Erre so as quite to fall away Therefore in his judgment this is a true and a safe sense of this Text of Scripture But as for not Erring at all in any Point of Divine Truth and so making the Church absolutely Infallible that 's neither a true nor a safe sense of this Scripture And 't is very remarkable that whereas this Text hath been so much beaten upon by Writers of all sorts there is no one Father of the Church for twelve hundred years after Christ the Counterfeit or Partial Decretals of some Popes excepted that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this Place but her Non deficiencie that hath been and is justly deduced hence And here I challenge A. C. and all that party to shew the contrary if they can The next Place of Scripture is Saint Matthew 28. The Promise of Christ that he will be with them to the end of the World But this in the general voyce of the Fathers of the Church is a promise of Assistance and Protection not of an Infallibility of the Church And Pope Leo himself enlarges this presence and providence of Christ to all those things which he committed to the execution of his Ministers But no word of Infallibility is to be found there And indeed since Christ according to his Prowise is present with his Ministers in all these things and that one and a Chief of these All is the preaching of his Word to the People It must follow That Christ should be present with all his Ministers that Preach his Word to make them Infallible which daily Experience tells us is not so The third Place urged by A. C. is S. Luke 22. Where the Prayer of Christ will effect no more than his Promise hath performed neither of them implying an Infallibility for or in the Church against all Errors whatsoever And this almost all his own side confess is spoken either of S. Peter's person only or of him and his Successors both Of the Church it is not spoken and therefore cannot prove an unerring Power in it For how can that place prove the Church cannot Erre which speaks not at all of the Church And 't is observable too that when the Divines of Paris expounded this Place that Christ here prayed for S. Peter as he represented the Whole Catholike Church and obtained for it that the Faith of the Catholike Church nunquam desiceret should never so erre as quite to fall away Bellarmine is so stiff for the Pope that he says expresly This Exposition of the Parisians is false and that this Text cannot be meant of the Catholike Church Not be meant of it Then certainly it ought not to be alledged as Proof of it as here it is by A. C. The fourth Place named by A. C. is S. John 14. And the consequent Place to it S. John 16. These Places contain another Promise of Christ concerning the coming of the Holy Ghost Thus That the Comforter shall abide with them for ever That this Comforter is the Spirit of Truth And That this Spirit of Truth will lead them into all Truth Now this Promise as it is applied to the Church consisting of all Believers which are and have been since Christ appeared in the Flesh including the Apostles is absolute and without any Restriction For the Holy Ghost did lead them into all Truth so that no Error was to be found in that Church
that Patriarchs Jurisdiction as it was then practised And he says expresly That according to the old Custome the Roman Patriarchs Charge was confined within the Limits of the Suburbicarian Churches To avoid the force of this Testimony Cardinal Peron lays load upon Ruffinus For he charges him with Passion Ignorance and Rashness And one piece of his Ignorance is That he hath ill translated the Canon of the Councel of Nice Now be that as it may I neither do nor can approve his Translation of that Canon nor can it be easily proved that he purposely intended a Translation All that I urge is that Ruffinus living in that time and Place was very like well to know and understand the Limits and Bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome in which he lived Secondly here 's That it had potentiorem a more powerful Principality than other Churches had And that the Protestants grant too and that not only because the Roman Prelate was Ordine primus first in Order and Degree which some One must be to avoid Confusion But also because the Roman Sea had won a great deal of Credit and gained a great deal of Power to it self in Church-Affairs Because while the Greek yea and the African Churches too were turbulent and distracted with many and dangerous Opinions the Church of Rome all that while and a good while after Irenaeus too was more calm and constant to the Truth Thirdly here 's a Necessity say they required That every Church that is the faithful which are every where agree with that Church But what simply with that Church what ever it do or believe No nothing less For Irenaeus adds with that Church in quâ in which is conserved that Tradition which was delivered by the Apostles And God forbid but it should be necessary for all Churches and all the faithful to agree with that Ancient Apostolike Church in all those Things in which it keeps to the Doctrine and Discipline delivered by the Apostles In Iraeneus his time it kept these better than any other Church and by this in part obtained potentiorem Principalitatem a Greater power than other Churches but not over all other Churches And as they understand Irenaeus a Necessity lay upon all other Churches to agree with this but this Necessity was laid upon them by the Then Integrity of the Christian Faith there professed not by the Universality of the Roman Jurisdiction now challenged And let Rome reduce it self to the Observation of Tradition Apostolike to which it then held and I will say as Irenaeus did That it will be then necessary for every Church and for the Faithful every where to agree with it Lastly let me Observe too That Irenaeus made no doubt but that Rome might fall away from Apostolical Tradition as well as other Particular Churches of great Name have done For he does not say in quâ servanda semper erit sed in quâ servata est Not in which Church the Doctrine delivered from the Apostles shall ever be entirely kept That had been home indeed But in which by God's Grace and Mercy it was to that time of Irenaeus so kept and preserved So we have here in Irenaeus his Judgment the Church of Rome then Entire but not Infallible And endowed with a more powerful Principality than other Churches but not with an Universal Dominion over all other Churches which is the Thing in Question Num. 14 But to this place of Irenaeus A. C. joyns a Reason of his own For he tells us the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's Successor and therefore to Him we must have recourse The Fathers I deny not ascribe very much to S. Peter But 't is to S. Peter in his own person And among them Epiphanius is as free and as frequent in extolling S. Peter as any of them And yet did he never intend to give an Absolute Principality to Rome in S. Peter's right There is a Noted Place in that Father where his words are these For the Lord himself made S. Peter the first of the Apostles a firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it c. For in him the Faith is made firm every way who received the Key of Heaven c. For in him all the Questions and Subtilties of the Faith are sound This is a great Place at first sight too and deserves a Marginal Note to call young Readers eyes to view it And it hath this Note in the Old Latine Edition at Paris 1564. Petri Principatus Praestantia Peters Principality and Excellencie This Place as much shew as it makes for the Roman Principality I shall easily clear and yet do no wrong either to S. Peter or the Roman Church For most manifest it is That the Authority of S. Peter is urged here to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost And then follow the Elogies given to S. Peter the better to set off and make good that Authority As that he was Princeps Apostolorum the Prince of the Apostles and pronounced blessed by Christ because as God the Father revealed to him the Godhead of the Son so did he again the Godhead of the Holy Ghost After this Epiphanius calls Him solidam Petram a solid Rock upon which the Church of God was founded against which the Gates of Hell should not prevail And adds That the Faith was rooted and made firm in him every way in him who received the Key of Heaven And after this he gives the Reason of all Because in Him mark I pray 't is still in Him as he was blessed by that Revelation from God the Father S. Mathew 16. were found all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Nice-Cities and exactness of the Christian Faith For he professed the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And so Omni modo every Point of Faith was rooted in Him And this is the full meaning of that Learned Father in this passage Now therefore Building the Church upon Saint Peter in Epiphanius his sense is not as if He and his Successors were to be Monarchs over it for ever But it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ by the Confession which S. Peter made And so He expresses himself elsewhere most plainly Saint Peter saith he who was made to us indeed a solid Rock firming the Faith of our Lord. On which Rock the Church is built juxta omnem modum every way First that he Confessed Christ to be the Son of the Living God and by and by he heard Upon this Rock of solid Faith I will build my Church And the same Confession he made of the Holy Ghost Thus was S. Peter a solid Rock upon which the Church was founded omni modo every way That is the Faith of the Church was ‖ confirmed by him in every Point But that S. Peter was any
Assembly it is probable 't is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Num. 2 Nor is this Hooker's alone nor is it newly thought on by us It is a Ground in Nature which Grace doth ever set right never undermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councel at Carthage would have presently yelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authority confirmed by Miracles and Antiquity S. Peter's Chair and Succession from it Motives to keep him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearly demonstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an evident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place every where but where these cannot be had there must be Submission to Authority Num. 3 And doth not Bellarmine himself grant this For speaking of Councels he delivers this Proposition That Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours and that in a Councel do proceed lawfully or not But then having bethought himself that Inferiours at all times and in all Causes are not to be cast off he addes this Exception Unless it manifestly appear that an intolerable Errour be committed So then if such an Errour be and be manifest Inferiours may do their duty and a Councel must yeeld unless you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a Private Spirit for neither doth he express who shall judge whether the Errour be intolerable Num. 4 This will not down with you but the Definition of a General Councel is and must be infallible Your Fellows tell us and you can affirm no more That the Voice of the Church determining in Councel is not Humane but Divine That is well Divine then sure Infallible yea but the Proposition sticks in the throat of them that would utter it It is not Divine simply but in a manner Divine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speak loudest in that manner in which it is not Divine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in an higher kinde than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in Testimony and Matter to be believed but the Church as the efficient Cause of Faith and in some sort the very formal Is not this Blasphemy Doth not this knock against all evidence of Truth and his own Grounds that says it Against all evidence of Truth For in all Ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians do do with the same breath grant it most undoubted and infallible But all men have not so judged of the Churches Definitions though they have in greatest Obedience submitted to them And against his own Grounds that says it For the Scripture is absolutely and every way Divine the Churches Definition is but sâ—o modo in a sort or manner Divine But that which is but in a sort can never be a Foundation in an Higher Degree than that which is absolute and every way such Therefore neither can the Definition of the Church be so Infallible as the Scripture much less in altiori genere in a higher kinde than the Scripture But because when all other things fail you flie to this That the Churches Definition in a General Councel is by Inspiration and so Divine and Infallible my haste shall not carry me from a little Consideration of that too Num. 1 Sixthly then If the Definition of a General Councel be infallible then the Infallibility of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Means that prove it or in the Conclusion not the Means or in the Means not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Means For there are divers Deliberations in General Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Means by which they prove it not infallible Not in the second The Conclusion and not the Means For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the Premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Councel uses be sometimes uncertain as is proved before the Conclusion cannot be Infallible Not in the third The Means and not the Conclusion For that cannot be true and necessary if the Means be so And this I am sure you will never grant because if you should you must deny the Infallibility which you seek to establish Num. 2 To this for I confess the Argument is old but can never be worn out nor shifted off your great Master Stapleton who is miserably hamper'd in it and indeed so are you all answers That the Infallibility of a Councel is in the second Course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be uncertain and fallible in the Means and Proof of it How comes this to pass It is a thing altogether unknown in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Num. 3 Well that is granted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes Knowledge But we shall have Reasons for it First because the Church is discursive and uses the Weights and Moments of Reason in the Means but is Prophetical and depends upon immediate Revelation from the Spirit of God in delivering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appear and all Controversie is at an end Well I will not discourse here To what end there is any use of Means if the Conclusion be Prophetical which yet is justly urged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Prophetical in the Conclusion I speak still of the present Church â— for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophecie and immediate Revelation was ever Prophetick in the Definition but then that was Infallible in the Means too That since it delivers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can bear it there must be some Supernatural Authority which must deliver this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flie to immediate Revelation now the Enthusiaesm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very Exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophecie in the Conclusion And I know no other thing that can warrant it If you think the Tradition of the Church can make the world beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that says This is an Universal Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a General Councel are Prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that says it of his own Authority that he thinks so
That it would call again and reform yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance upon just cause made evident that this Representing Body had failed in Trust or Truth And this Power no Body Collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Councel or call it what you will that represents it Nay in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councel hath power to order settle and Define differences arisen concerning Faith This Power the Councel hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparent Apostolical Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held have is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches power front God And this Power the Church cannot farther give away to a General Councel than that the Decrees of it shall binde all Particulars and it self but not binde the whole Church from calling again and in the After-calls upon just Cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts. I say upon just Cause For if the Councel be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approve the Councel and then the Definitions of it are Binding And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her own may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her Representative Body a Lawful General Councel And certain it is no Power but her own may do it Nor doth this open any gap to private Spirits For all Decisions in such a Councel are Binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councel shall remain the Supreme External Living Temporary Ecclesiastical Judge of all Controversies Onely the Whole Church and she alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendred to her to represent her self again in a new Councel and in it to order what was amiss Num. 7 Nay your Opinion is yet more unreasonable For you do not onely make the Definition of a General Councel but the Sentence of the Pope infallible nay more Infallible than it For any General Councel may erre with you if the Pope confirm it not So belike this Infallibility rests not in the Representative Body the Councel nor in the Whole Body the Church but in your Head of the Church the Pope of Rome Now I may ask you to what end such a trouble for a General Councel Or wherein are we nearer to Unity if the Pope confirm it not You answer though not in the Conference yet elsewhere That the Pope erres not especially giving Sentence in a General Councel And why especially Doth the Deliberation of a Councel help any thing to the Conclusion Surely not in your Opinion For you hold the Conclusion Prophetical the means fallible and fallible Deliberations cannot advance to a Prophetick Conclusion And just as the Councel is in Stapleton's Judgement for the Definition and the Proofs so is the Pope in the Judgement of Melch. Canus and them which followed him Prophetical in the Conclusion The Councel then is called but onely in effect to hear the Pope give his Sentence in more state Else what means this of Stapleton The Pope by a Councel joyned unto him acquires no new Power or Authority or Certainty in Judging no more than a Head is the wiser by joyning the Offices of the rest of the members to it than it is without them Or this of Bellarmine That the firmness and infallibility of a General Councel is onely from the Pope not partly from the Pope and partly from the Councel So belike the Presence is necessary not the Assistance Which opinion is the most groundless and worthless that ever offered to take possession of the Christian Church And I am perswaded many Learned men among your selves scorn it at the very heart And I avow it I have heard some Learned and Judicious Romane Catholikes utterly condemn it And well they may For no man can affirm it but he shall make himself a scorn to all the Learned men of Christendom whose Judgements are not Captivated by Romane power And for my own part I am clear of Jacobus Almain's Opinion And a great wonder it is to me That they which affirm the Pope cannot erre do not affirm likewise that he cannot sin And I verily believe they would be bold enough to affirm it did not the daily Works of the Popes compel them to believe the Contrary For very many of them have led lives quite Contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Nay such lives as no Epicurean Monster storied out to the world hath out-gone them in sensuality or other gross Impiety if their own Historians be true Take your choice of John the thirteenth about the year 966. Or of Sylvester the second about the year 999. Or John the eighteenth about the year 1003. Or Benedict the ninth about the year 1033. Or Boniface the eighth about the year 1294. Or Alexander the sixth about the year 1492. And yet these and their like must be Infallible in their Dictates and Conclusions of Faith Do your own believe it Surely no. For Alphonsus à Castro tells us plainly That he doth not believe that any man can be so gross and impudent a flatterer of the Pope as to attribute this unto him that he can neither erre nor mistake in expounding the holy Scripture This comes home And therefore it may well be thought it hath taken a shrewd Purge For these words are Express in the Edition at Paris 1534. But they are not to be found in that at Colen 1539. Nor in that at Antwerp 1556. Nor in that at Paris 1571. Harding says indeed Alphonsus left it out of himself in the following Editions Well First Harding says this but proves it not so I may chuse whether I will believe him or no. Secondly be it so that he did that cannot help their Cause a whit For say he did mislike the sharpness of the Phrase or ought else in this speech yet he alter'd not his Judgement of the thing For in all these later Editions he speaks as home if not more than in the first and says Expresly That the Pope may erre not onely as a private person but as Pope And in difficult Cases he addes That the Pope ought to Consult Viros doctos men of Learning And this also was the Opinion of the Ancient Church of Christ concerning the Pope and his Infallibility For thus Liberius and he ◠Pope himself writes to Athanasius Brother Athanasius if you think in the presence of God and Christ as I do I pray subscribe this Confession which is thought to be the true Faith of the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church that
first besides the silence of Impartial Antiquity divers of your Own confess it yea and prove it too by sundry Instances Num. 10 Secondly There is a great Question among the Learned both School-men and Controversers Whether the Pope coming to be an Heretick may be Deposed And 't is Learnedly disputed by Bellarmine The Opinions are different For the Canon-Law says expresly He may be judged and deposed by the Church in case of Heresie Joh. de Turrecremata is of Opinion That the Pope is to be deposed by the Church so soon as he becomes an Heretick though as yet not a manifest one Because he is already deprived by Divine Right And recites another opinion That the Pope cannot be deposed though he fall into secret or manifest Heresie Cajetan thinks that the Pope cannot be deposed but for a manifest Heresie and that then he is not deposed ipso facto but must be deposed by the Church Bellarmine's own Opinion is That if the Pope become a manifest Heretick he presently ceases to be Pope and Head of the Church and may then be Judged and punished by the Church Bellarmine hath disputed this very Learnedly and at large and I will not fill this Discourse with another mans Labours The use I shall make of it runs through all these Opinions and through all alike And truly the very Question it self supposes that A Pope may be an Heretick For if he cannot be an Heretick why do they question whether he can be Deposed for being One And if he can be one then whether he can be Deposed by the Church Before he be manifest or not till after or neither before nor after or which way they will it comes all to one for my purpose For I question not here his Deposition for his Heresie but his Heresie And I hope none of these Learned men nor any other dare deny but that if the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre For every Heresie is an Errour and more For 't is an Errour oft-times against the Errants knowledge but ever with the pertinacie of his Will Therefore out of all even your own Grounds If the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre grosly he can erre wilfully And he that can so Erre cannot be Infallible in his Judgement private or publike For if he can be an Heretick he can and doubtless will Judge for his Heresie if the Church let him alone And you your selves maintain his Deposition lawful to prevent this I verily believe Alb. Pighius foresaw this Blow And therefore he is of Opinion That the Pope cannot become an Heretick at all And though Bellarmine favour him so far as to say his Opinion is probable yet he is so honest as to adde that the Common opinion of Divines is against him Nay though he Labour hard to excuse Pope Honorius the first from the Heresie of the Monothelites and says that Pope Adrian was deceived who thought him one yet He confesses That Pope Adrian the second with the Councel then held at Rome and the eighth General Synod did think that the Pope might be Judged in the Cause of Heresie And that the condition of the Church were most miserable if it should be constrained to acknowledge a Wolf manifestly raging for her Shepherd And here again I have a Question to ask Whether you believe the eighth General Councel or not If you believe it then you see the Pope can erre and so He not Infallible If you believe it not then in your Judgement that General Councel erres and so that not Infallible Num. 11 Thirdly It is altogether in vain and to no use that the Pope should be Infallible and that according to your own Principles Now God and Nature make nothing in vain Therefore either the Pope is not Infallible or at least God never made him so That the Infallibility of the Pope had he any in him is altogether vain and useless is manifest For if it be of any use 't is for the setling of Truth and Peace in the Church in all times of her Distraction But neither the Church nor any member of it can make any use of the Popes Infallibility that way Therefore it is of no use or benefit at all And this also is as manifest as the rest For before the Church or any particular man can make any use of this Infallibility to settle him and his Conscience he must either Know or Believe that the Pope is Infallible But a man can neither Know nor Believe it And first for Belief For if the Church or any Christian man can believe it he must believe it either by Divine or by Humane Faith Divine Faith cannot be had of it For as is before proved it hath no Ground in the written Word of God Nay to follow you closer it was never delivered by any Tradition of the Catholike Church And for Humane Faith no Rational man can possibly believe having no Word of God to over-rule his Understanding that he which is Fallible in the Means as your selves confess the Pope is can possibly be Infallible in the Conclusion And were it so that a Rational man could have Humane Faith of this Infallibility yet that neither is nor never can be sufficient to make the Pope Infallible No more than my strong Belief of another mans Honesty can make him an Honest man if he be not so Now secondly for Knowledge and that is altogether impossible too that either the Church or any Member of the Church should ever know that the Pope is Infallible And this I shall make evident also out of your own Principles For your Councel of Florence had told us That three things are necessary to every Sacrament the Matter the Form of the Sacrament and the Intention of the Priest which administers it that he intends to do as the Church doth Your Councel of Trent confirms it for the Intention of the Priest Upon this Ground be it Rock or Sand it is all one for you make it Rock and build upon it I shall raise this Battery against the Popes Infallibility First the Pope if he have any Infallibility at all he hath it as he is Bishop of Rome and S. Peter's Successour This is granted Secondly the Pope cannot be Bishop of Rome but he must be in holy Orders first And if any man be chosen that is not so the Election is void ipso facto propter errorem Personae for the errour of the Person This also is granted Thirdly He that is to be made Pope can never be in Holy Orders but by receiving them from One that hath Power to Ordain This is notoriously known So is it also that with you Order is a Sacrament properly so called And if so then the Pope when he did receive the Order of Deacon or Priesthood at the hands of the Bishop did also receive a Sacrament Upon these Grounds I raise my
you are bound in Charity to believe us unless you can prove the Contrary For I know no other proof to men of any Point of Faith but Confession of it and Subscription to it And for these particulars we have made the one and done the other So 't is no bare saying but you have all the proof that can be had or that ever any Church required For how far that Belief or any other sinks into a mans heart is for none to judge but God Num. 3 Next A. C. Answers That if to say this be a sufficient Cause of Considence he marvels why I make such difficulty to be Confident of the Salvation of Romane Catholikes who believe all this in a far better manner than Protestants do Truly to say this is not a sufficient cause but to say and believe it is And to take off A. C's wonder why I make difficulty great difficulty of the salvation of Romane Catholikes who he says believe all this and in a far better manner than Protestants do I must be bold to tell him That Romanists are so far from believing this in a better manner than we do that under favour they believe not part of this at all And this is most manifest For the Romanists dare not believe but as the Romane Church believes And the Romane Church at this day doth not believe the Scripture and the Creeds in the sense in the which the Ancient Primitive Church received them For the Primitive Church never interpreted Christ's descent into Hell to be no lower than Limbus Patrum Nor did it acknowledge a Purgatory in a side-part of Hell Nor did it ever interpret away half the Sacrament from Christ's own Institution which to break Stapleton confesses expresly is a Damnable Errour Nor make the Intention of the Priest of the Essence of Baptism Nor believe Worship due to Images Nor dream of a Transubstantiation which the Learned of the Romane party dare not understand properly for a change of one substance into another for then they must grant that Christ's real and true Body is made of the Bread and the Bread changed into it which is properly Transubstantion Nor yet can they express it in a credible way as appears by Bellarmine's Struggle about it which yet in the end cannot be or be called Transubstantiation and is that which at this day is a scandal to both Jew and Gentile and the Church of God Num. 4 For all this A. C. goes on and tells us That they of Rome cannot be proved to depart from the Foundation so much as Protestants do So then We have at last a Confession here that they may be proved to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so far as the Protestants do I do not mean to Answer this and prove that the Romanists do depart as far or farther from the Foundation than the Protestants for then A. C. would take me at the same lift and say I granted a departure too Briefly therefore I have named here more Instances than one In some of which they have erred in the Foundation or very neer it But for the Church of England let A. C. instance if he can in any one Point in which She hath departed from the Foundation Well that A. C. will do For he says The Protestants erre against the Foundation by denying infallible Authority to a General Councel for that is in effect to deny Infallibility to the whole Catholike Church No there 's a great deal of difference between a General Councel and the whole Body of the Church Aud when a General Councel erres as the second of Ephesus did on t of that great Catholike Body another may be gathered as was then that of Chalcedon to do the Truth of Christ that right which belongs unto it Now if it were all one in effect to say a General Councel can erre and that the Whole Church can erre there were no Remedy left against a General Councel erring which is your Case now at Rome and which hath thrust the Church of Christ into more straits than any one thing besides But I know where you would be A General Councel is Infallible if it be confirmed by the Pope and the Pope he is Infallible else he could not make the Councel so And they which deny the Councels Infallibility deny the Pope's which confirms it And then indeed the Protestants depart a mighty way from this great Foundation of Faith the Popes Infallibility But God be thanked this is onely from the Foundation of the present Romane Faith as A. C. and the Jesuite call it not from any Foundation of the Christian Faith to which this Infallibility was ever a stranger Num. 5 From Answering A. C. falls to asking Questions I think he means to try whether he can win any thing upon me by the cunning way A multis Interrogationibus simul by asking many things at once to see if any one may make me slip into a Confession inconvenient And first he asks How Protestants admitting no Infallible Rule of Faith but Scripture onely can be infallibly sure that they believe the same entire Scripture and Creed and the Four first General Councels and in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitive Church believed 'T is just as I said Here are many Questions in one and I might easily be caught would I answer in gross to them all together but I shall go more distinctly to work Well then I admit no ordinary Rule left in the Church of Divine and Infallible Verity and so of Faith but the Scripture And I believe the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church Then by all other credible Motives as is before expressed And last of all by the light which shines in the Scripture it self kindled in Believers by the Spirit of God Then I believe the entire Scripture Infallibly and by a Divine Infallibility am sure of my Object Then am I as sure of my Believing which is the Act of my Faith conversant about this Object For no man believes but he must needs know in himself whether he believes or no and wherein and how far he doubts Then I am Infallibly assured of my Creed the Tradition of the Church inducing and the Scripture confirming it And I believe both Scripture and Creed in the same uncorrupted sense which the Primitive Church believed them and am sure that I do so Believe them because I cross not in my Belief any thing delivered by the Primitive Church And this again I am sure of because I take the Belief of the Primitive Church as it is expressed and delivered by the Councels and Ancient Fathers of those times As for the Four Councels if A. C. ask how I have them that is their true and entire Copies I answer I have them from the church-Church-Tradition onely And that 's Assurance enough for this And so I am fully as sure as A. C.
is or can make me But if he ask how I know infallibly I believe them in their true and uncorrupted sense Then I answer There 's no man of knowledge but he can understand the plain and simple Decision expressed in the Canon of the Councel where 't is necessary to Salvation And for all other debates in the Councels or Decisions of it in things of less moment 't is not necessary that I or any man else have Infallible Assurance of them though I think 't is possible to attain even in these things as much Infallible Assurance of the uncorrupted sense of them as A. C. or any other Jesuites have Num. 6 A. C. asks again What Text of Scripture tells That Protestants now living do believe all this or that all this is expressed in those particular Bibles or in the Writings of the Fathers and Councels which now are in the Protestants hands Good God! Whither will not a strong Bias carry even a learned Judgment Why what Consequence is there in this The Scripture now is the onely Ordinary Infallible Rule of Divine Faith Therefore the Protestants cannot believe all this before mentioned unless a particular Text of Scripture can be shewed for it Is it not made plain before how we believe Scripture to be Scripture and by Divine and Infallible Faith too and yet we can shew no particular Text for it Beside were a Text of Scripture necessary yet that is for the Object and the thing which we are to believe not for the Act of our believing which is meerly from God and in our selves and for which we cannot have any Warrant from or by Scripture more than that we ought to believe but not that we in our particular do believe The rest of the Question is far more inconsequent VVhether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are in Protestants hands For first we have the same Bibles in our hands which the Romanists have in theirs Therefore either we are Infallibly sure of ours or they are not Infallibly sure of theirs For we have the same Book and delivered unto us by the same hands and all is expressed in ours that is in theirs Nor is it of moment in this Argument that we account more Apocryphal than they do For I will acknowledge every Fundamental point of Faith as proveable out of the Canon as we account it as if the Apocryphal were added unto it Secondly A. C. is here extreamly out of himself and his way For his Question is VVhether all this be expressed in the Bibles which we have All this All what Why before there is mention of the four General Councels and in this Question here 's mention of the Writings of the Fathers and the Councels And what will A. C. look that we must shew a Text of Scripture for all this and an express one too I thought and do so still 't is enough to ground Belief upon Necessary Consequence out of Scripture as well as upon express Text. And this I am sure of that neither I nor any man else is bound to believe any thing as Necessary to Salvation be it found in Councels or Fathers or where you will if it be Contrary to express Scripture or necessary Consequence from it And for the Copies of the Councels and Fathers which are in our hands they are the same that are in the hands of the Romanists and delivered to Posterity by Tradition of the Church which is abundantly sufficient to warrant that So we are as Infallibly sure of this as 't is possible for any of you to be Nay are we not more sure For we have used no Index Expurgatorius upon the Writings of the Fathers as you have done So that Posterity hereafter must thank us for true Copies both of Councels and Fathers and not you Num. 7 But A. C. goes on and asks still Whether Protestants be Infallibly sure that they rightly understand the sense of all which is expressed in their Books according to that which was understood by the Primitive Church and the Fathers which were present at the four first General Councels A. C. may ask everlastingly if he will ask the same over and over again For I pray wherein doth this differ from his Question save onely that here Scripture is not named For there the Question was of our Assurance of the Incorrupted sense And therefore thither I refer you for Answer with this That it is not required either of us or of them that there should be had an Infallible assurance that we rightly understand the sense of all that is expressed in our Books And I think I may believe without sin that there are many things expressed in these Books for they are theirs as well as ours which A. C. and his Fellows have not Infallible assurance that they rightly understand in the sense of the Primitive Church or the Fathers present in those Councels And if they say Yes they can because when a difficulty crosses them they believe them in the Churches sense Yet that dry shift will not serve For belief of them in the Churches sense is an Implicite Faith but it works nothing distinctly upon the understanding For by an Implioite Faith no man can be infallibly assured that he doth rightly understand the sense which is A. C's Question whatever perhaps he may rightly believe And an Implicite Faith and an Infallible understanding of the same thing under the same Considerations cannot possibly stand together in the same man at the same time Num. 8 A. C. hath not done asking yet But he would farther know Whether Protestants can be Infallibly sure that all and onely those points which Protestants account Fundamental and necessary to be expresly known by all were so accounted by the Primitive Church Truly Unity in the Faith is very Considerable in the Church And in this the Protestants agree and as Uniformly as you and have as Infallible Assurance as you can have of all points which they account Fundamental yea and of all which were so accounted by the Primitive Church And these are but the Creed and some few and those Immediate deductions from it And †Tertullian and Ruffinus upon the very Clause of the Catholike Church to decipher it make a recital onely of the Fundamental Points of Faith And for the first of these the Creed you see what the sense of the Primitive Church was by that Famous and known place of Irenaeus where after he had recited the Creed as the Epitome or Brief of the Faith he adds That none of the Governours of the Church be they never so potent to Express them selves can say alia ab his other things from these Nor none so weak in Expression as to diminish this Tradition For since the Faith is One and the same He that can say much of it says no more than he ought Nor doth he diminish it that can say but little And in
at Credimus we believe eternal Punishment but he goes no farther than Arbitramur we think there is a Purging So with him it was Arbitrary And therefore sure no Matter of Faith then And again he saith That some Christians may be saved post poenas after some punishments indured but he neither tells us Where nor When. S. Basil names indeed Purgatory fire but he relates as uncertainly to that in 1 Cor. 3. as S. Ambrose doth As for Paulinus he speaks for Prayer for the dead but not a word of Purgatory And the Place in S. Gregory Nazianzen is far from a manifest Place For he speaks there of Baptism by fire which is no usual phrase to signifie Purgatory But yet say that here he doth there 's a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fortassis a peradventure in the words which Bellarmine cunningly leaves out And if it be a Peradventure ye shall then be Baptized with fire why then 't is at a Peradventure too that ye shall not Now such Casual stuff as this peradventure you shall and peradventure you shall not is no Expression for things which are valued to be de side and to be believed as Matters of Faith Bellarmine goes on with Lactantius but with no better success For he says indeed That some men perstringentur igne shall be sharply touched by fire But he speaks of such quorum peccata praevaluerunt whose sins have prevailed And they in Bellarmine's Doctrine are for Hell not Purgatory As for S. Hilary he will not come home neither 'T is true he speaks of a Fine too and one that must be indured but he tells us 't is a punishment expiandae à peccatis animae to purge the soul from sins Now this will not serve Bellarmine's turn For they of Rome teach That the sins are forgiven here and that the Temporal Punishment onely remains to be satisfied in Purgatory And what need is there then of purging of sins Lest there should not be Fathers enough he reckons in Boetius too But he though not long before a Convert yet was so well seen in this Point that he goes no farther than Puto I think that after death some souls are exercised purgatoriâ clementiâ with a Purgative Clemency But Puto I think 't is so is no expression for Matter of Faith The two pregnant Authorities which seem to come home are those of Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret But for Theodoret in Scholiis Graecis which is the Place Bellarmine quotes I can finde no such Thing And manifest it is Bellarmine himself took it but upon trust And for S. Gregory Nyssen 't is true some places in him seem plain But then they are made so doubtful by other Places in him that I dare not say simply and roundly what his Judgment was For he says Men must be purged from Perturbations and either by Prayers and Philosophy or the study of Wisdome or by the furnace of Purgatory-fire after this life And again That a man cannot be partaker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine nature unless the Purging-fire doth take away the stains that are in his Soul And again That after this life a Purgatory-fire takes away the blots and propensity to evil And I deny not divers other like places are in him But first this is quite another thing from the Roman Purgatory For S. Gregory tells us here that the Purgatory he means purges Perturbations and stains and blots and propensity to evil Whereas the Purgatory which Rome now teaches purges not sin but is only satisfactory by way of punishment for sins already forgiven but for which satisfaction was not made before their Death Secondly S. Gregory Nyssen himself seems not obscurely to relate to some other Fire For he says expresly That the soul is to be punished till the Vitiosity of it be consumed Purgatorio igne So the Translation renders it but in the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in a fire that sleeps not which for ought appears may be understood of a Fire that is eternal whereas the fire assigned to Purgatory shall cease Besides S. Gregory says plainly The Soul cannot suffer by sire but in the Body and the Body cannot be with it till the Resurrection Therefore he must needs speak of a fire after the Resurrection which must be either the Fire of the General Conflagration or Hell Purgatory he cannot mean Where according to the Romish Tenet the Soul suffers without the Body The truth is Divers of the Ancient especially Greeks which were a little too much acquainted with Plato's School philosophized and disputed upon this and some other Points with much Obscurity and as little Certainty So upon the whole matter in the fourth and fifth hundred year you see here 's none that constantly and perspicuously affirm it And as for S. Augustine he said and unsaid it and at the last left it doubtful which had it then been received as a Point of Faith he durst not have done Indeed then in S. Gregory the Great 's time in the beginning of the sixth Age Purgatory was grown to some perfection For S. Gregory himself is at Scio 't was but at Puto a little before I know that some shall be Expiated in Purgatory flames And therefore I will easily give Bellarmine all that follow For after this time Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffered to Cool again And in the after Ages more were frighted than led by proof into the Belief of it Num. 17 Now by this we see also That it could not be a Tradition For then we might have traced it by the smoke to the Apostles times Indeed Bellarmine would have it such a Tradition For he tells us out of S. Augustine That that is rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical Authority which the whole Church holds and hath ever held and yet is not Instituted by any Councel And he adds That Purgatory is such a Tradition so Constantly held in the whole Church Greek and Latine And that we do not finde any beginning of this Belief Where I shall take the boldness to Observe these three things First that the Doctrine of Purgatory was not held ever in the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And this appears by the proofs of Bellarmine himself produced and I have before examined For there 't is manifest that scarce two Fathers directly affirm the belief of Purgatory for full six hundred years after Christ. Therefore Purgatory is no Matter of Faith nor to be believed as descending from Apostolical Authority by S. Augustine's Rule Secondly that we can finde a beginning of this Doctrine and a Beginner too namely Origen And neither Bellarmine nor any other is able to shew any one Father of the Church that said it before him Therefore Purgatory is not to be believed as a Doctrine delivered
117. and how recovered 118. primacy of order granted them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions but no Principality of power from Christ 109 110. some of them opposed by the African Church 112. some of them Hereticks 124. some Apostates 173. some false Prophets 174. how unfit Judges of Controversies 162 163 254. the lâ—wd lives of many of them 172. Pope Liberius his clear testimony against the Popes Infallibility 173 Prayer what requisite that it may be heard 127 154 155. Prayer for the dead that it presupposeth not Purgatory 162 Preachers how their Preaching to be esteemed of 64. none since the Apostles infallible 232 Precisians their opposition to lawful Ceremonies occasioned by the Romanists 183. that there be of them in the Romane Church no less then in the Protestant 87. their agreement in many things 64 Princes the moderation and equiquity of all that are good 103 the power of Soveraign Princes in matters Ecclesiastical 111. all of the Clergy subject to them 134 Prophecy the spirit of it not to be attained by study 163 164 Protestants why so called 87 of their departing from the errours of the Roman Church 86 87. On what terms invited by Rome to a general Councel 92 93 their charitable grant of possibility of salvation in the Romane Church met with uncharitableness by the Roman party 184 185. they that deny possibility of salvation to them confuted 186 187. their Faith sufficient to salvation 212 Purgatory not thought on by any Father within the three first hundred years 227. not presupposed by Prayer for the dead ibid. Origen the first Founder of it 226 230. proofs of it examined ibid. the Purgatories mentioned by the Fathers different from that believ'd by Rome 228 229. the Fathers alledg'd for it cleared 227 c. the Papists their Blasphemous assertion touching the necessity of believing it 231. Bellarmines contradiction touching the beginning of it ibid. R REason not excluded or blemished by grace 48 49. the chief use of it 51. what place it hath in the proof of divine supernatural truths 39 48. how high it can go in proving the truth of Christian Religion 49 165 Reformation in what case it 's lawful for a particular Church to Reform her self 96 c. and to publish any thing that 's Catholike in faith or manners 97 108. Examples of it 99 100. Reformation by Protestants how to be judged of 99 faults incident to Reformation and Reformers of Religion 101. who the chief hinderers of a general Reformation 101. Reformation of the Church of England justified 114. the manner of it 100 101. what places Princes have in the Reformation of the Church ibid. Christian Religion how the truth of it proved by the Ancients 49. the propagation of it and the firmness where it 's once received 50 51. the evil of believing it in one sort and practising it in another 243 244. yet this taught by some Jesuites and Romish Priests ibid. one Christian Religion of Protestants and Romanists though they differ in it 245. private mens opinions in Religion not to be esteemed the Churches 20. Religion as it is professed in the Church of England nearest of any Church now being to the Primitive Church 245. Resurrection what believed by all Christians what by some Hereticks denied 201 202 Private Revelation in what case to be admitted 49 Divine Revelation the necessity of it 73 B. Rhenanus purged on behalf of Rome 239 B. Ridley his full confession of the Real Presence 193. his conviction of Archbishop Cranmers judgment touching it 192 Romanes who truly such and their true priviledge 4. Rome her praeter and super-structures in the â—aith 7. 8. She and Spain compared in their two Monarchies 137. Heresies both begun and maintained in her 9. 10. wherein she hath erred 12. whether impossible for the Apostolike Sea to be removed thence 12 13. that she may Apostatize 13. her definitions of things not necessary 21. She the chief hinderance of a general Reformation 110. of her pretended Soveraignty and the bad effects of it 102 103 c. what Principality and Power She hath and whence 109 110 114 c. 120. She not the head of the Church nor did all Churches depend on her 111 112 119. that she hath kept nor faith nor unity inviolated 253. whether all Christians be bound to agree with her in faith 119. and in what case they are so 120. the ancient bounds of her jurisdiction 120. possibility of Salvation in her and to whom 118 105 c. the danger of living and dying in her Communion 193 195 196 197. her rigour and cruelty beyond that of Schismatical Israel 194. her fundamental errours of what nature 208. the Catholike Church her Head and Root not she of it 240 c. Roman Sea in what case a particular Church may make Canons with out consulting it 98 99 c. 109. Romanists their cunning dealing with their Converts in fieri 83. of their calling for a free hearing 94 95. their agreement with the Donatists in contracting the Church to their side 188 189. their danger in different respects lesser or greater than that of the Donatists 196 Ruffinus his pernicious cunning 6 his dissent from the Romane Church 10. branded by the Pope with Heresie 11. his words explained 8 9 10 S SAcraments against the necessity of his intention who administers them 178 179 c. 200 213 Sacriledge and Schism usually go together 101 Saints against the Invocation of them 181. they are made by Bellarmine to be Numina and in some sort our Redeemers ibid. Salvation controversies amongst the Romanists about the certainty of it 32 Schism the heinousness of it 95 who the cause of it at this day 86 88 126. the continuance of it whence 94 Schismatical Church to live in one and to communicate in the Schism how different 194. the Protestants their leaving Rome no Schism 126. of the Schism of Israel and those that lived there in the time of it 97 194 Science supream what 78 Scotus righted 20 Scripture that it was received and hath continued uncorrupt 79 what books make up the Canon of it 11. all parts of it alike firm not alike fundamental 27. that it is the Word of God is a prime principle of faith 28 c. 75 76 80 the sufficiency of it 34 75 76 c. 81. how known to be Gods Word 38 c. Of the Circular probation of Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture 38 75 the different ways of proving it 39. it is a higher proof than the Churches Tradition 40. the testimony proving it must be Divine and Infallible 43 45 47 whether it can be known to be Gods Word by its own light 45 46. and that the Roman Church by her own Tenet ought so to hold 46. what the chief and what the first inducement to the credibility of it 53 54 57 65 66 68. the Divine light thereof and what light the natural man sees in it 53 54. Confirmation by
know it fell not from him on the sudden he had said as much before in the beginning of the same Chapter and here he confirma it again †Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Scriptura sufficientâ—r contiâ—â—t Doctrinam necessariam Viatori Thom. 2. 2â— q. 1. A. 10. ad 1. In Doctrinâ— Christi Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficientèr explicata And he speaks there of the written Word ‖ Scripturam Fundamentum esse Columnam Fidei fatemur in suo genere i. e. in genere Testimoniorum in materâ—â— Credendorum Relect. Con. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. in fine A. C. p. 48. A. C. p. 4. * Habitus enim Fidei itâ— se habet in in orâ—ine ad Theologiam sicut se habet Habitus intellectus ad Scientias humanas M. Canus L. 2. de Loc. c. 8. A. C. p. 49. †S. Aug. expresly of the Baptism of Infants L. 1. de Peccato Mer. Remiss c. 30 Et L. 2. c. 27. Et L. 3. de Animà ejus Origine c. 13. Nay they of the Romane Party which urge the Baptism of Infants as a matter of Faith and yet not to be concluded out of Scripture when they are not in eager pursuit of this Controversie but look upon truth with a more indifferent eye consess as much even the Leaundist of them as we ask Advertendum autem Salvatorem dum dicit Nisi quis renatus c. necessitatem imponere omnibus ac proinde Parvulos debire renasci ex aquâ Spiritu Jansen Harm in Evang c. 20. So hereis Baptism Necessary for Infants and that Necessity imposed by our Saviour and not by the Church only Haeretici nulld alio quà m hoc Scripturae testimonio probare pollunt Infantes esse baptizandos Mald. in S. oh 3. 5. So Maldonat confesses that the Hereticks we know whom he means can prove the Baptism of Infants by no Testimony of Scripture but this which speech implies That by this Testimony of Scripture it is and can be proved and therefore not by Church-Tradition only And I would fain know why Bellarmine L. 1. de Baptism cap. 8. §. 5. should bring three Arguments out of Scripture to prove the Baptism of Infants Habemus in Scripturie tria Argumenta c. if Baptism cannot be proved at all out of Scripture but only by the Tradition of the Church And yet this is not Bellarmine's way alone but Suarez's in Tho. p. 3. q. 68. Disput. 25. Sect. 1. §. 2. Ex Scripturá possant varia Argumenta sumi ad confirmandum Paedobaptismum Et similitèr c. And Greg. de Valentià L. de Baptis Farâ—ulorum c. 2. §. 1. And the Pope himself Innocent 3. L. 3. Decretal Tit. 42. Cap. Majores And they all jump with S. Amâ—â— L. 10. Epist. 84. 〈◊〉 Demetriadem Virginem who expresly affirms it Paedobaptismum esse Constitutionem Salvatoris And proves it out of S. Joh. 3. 5. * Infantes reos esse Originalis peccati ideo baptizandos esse Antiquam Fidei Regulaâ— vocat S. Aug. Ser 8. de verb. Apost c. 8. Et nemo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas hoc Ecclesia semper babuit semper tenuit hoc à majorum sidâ— recepit c. S. Aug. Serm. 10. de verb Apost c. 2. S. Ambros. E. 10. Ep 84. circa medium Et S. Chrysost. Hom. de Adam Eva. Hoc praedicat Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa †Egi causam eorum qui pro se loqui non possunt c. S. Aug. Serm. 8. de verb. Apost c. 8. * Act 2. 38 39. * Nullum excipit non Judeum non Gentilem non Adultum non Puerum c. Ferus in Act. 2. 39. †Et ad Filios vestros quare debent consentire quum ad usum rationis perveniunt ad implenda promissa in Baptismo c. Salm. Tract 14. upon the place * Bellar. L. 4. de Verbo Dei c. 9. §. 5. †S. Aug. Gen. ad Lit. c. 23. Consuetudo Matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est nec omnind credenda nisi Apostolica esset Traditio * Cur Antiquam fidei Regulam frangere conaris S. Aug. Ser. 8. de ver Apost c. 8. Hoc Ecclesia semper tenuit Ib. Ser. 10. c. 2. †Quid necessarium babuit Infans Christum si non aegrotat S. Matth. 9. 12. Quid est quod dicis nist ut non accedant ad Jesum Sed tibi clamat Jesus Sine Parvulos venire ad me S. Aug. in the fore cited places * S. Marc. 10. 14. †Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certe referat Calv. 4. Iust. c. 16. §. 8. ‖ Miserrimum asylum soret si pro Defensione Paedobaptismi ad nudam Ecclisia authoritatem fugere cogeremur Cal. 4. Inst. c. 8. §. 16. * §. 15. Num. 1. A. C. p. 49. NUM 6. ◠†Orig. iâ— Rom. 6. 8. 〈◊〉 2. p. 543. Pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis Traditionem sâ—scepit etiam parvulis Baptis mum dare Et S. Aug. Ser. 10. de verb. Apost c. 2. Hoc Ecclesia à Majorum fide percepit And it is to be observed that neither of these Fathers nor I believe any other say that the Church received it à Traditione solâ or à Majorum fide solâ as if Tradition did exclude collection of it out of Scripture ‖ Yea and B. slarmine himself avers Onnes Traditiones c. contineri in Scripturis in universall Lib. 4. de verb. Dei non scripto c. 10. §. Sic etiam And S. Basil. Serm. de fide approves only those Agrapha quae non sunt aliena à piâ secundum Scripturam Sententiâ * Qui conantur fidem destruere sub specie Quaestionis difficible aut sortè indissolubilis c. Orig. Q. 35. in S. Matth. * To know that Scriptures are Divine and insallible in every part is a Foundation so necessary as if it be doubtfully question'd all the Faith built upon Scripture falls to the ground A. C. p. 47. Necesse est nosse ext are libros aliquos verè Divinos Bellatm L. 4. de verb. Dei non scripto c. 4. §. Quartò necesse Et etiam libros qui sunt in manibus esse illos ibid. §. Sextò oportet 1. 2. 3. 4. Rom. 1. 20. * Esse aliquas veras Traditiones demonstratur ex Scripturis Bellar. L. 4. de verbe Dei non scripto c. 5. and A. C. p. 50. proves Tradition out of 2 Thes. 2. * Arist. 1. Post. â— 2. T. 16. Per Pacium Quòcirca si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter prima scimus credimus illa quoque scimus credimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magis quia per illa scimus credimus etiam posteriora †Eorum errorem dissimulare non possum qui asserunt fidem Nostram 〈◊〉 tanquà m in ultimam credendi causam reducendam esse Ut Credamus Ecclesiam esse
question but to make them ready against they understood it And as School-Masters make their Scholars conne their Grammar-Rules by heart that they may be ready for their use when they better understand them NUM â—0 * L. 1. cont Epis. 〈◊〉 c. ◠〈…〉 non credâ—râ—m E 〈…〉 â—isi me catholiâ—â— Ecclesiâ— commâ—veret Authoritâ—◠†Occham Diaâ— p. 1 L. â— c. 4. Intelligitur solum dâ— Ecclesi◠〈◊〉 â—uit â—â—â—pore Apostolorum ‖ Bâ—el lect 22. in C. Missâ— A tempore Christi Apostolorum c. And so doth S. Aug. take â—ccles 〈…〉 a Fâ—â—d * â— 16. Nâ— 6. * Sâ—ve Inâ—ideles â—ive in Fide Novitii Can. Loc. L. 2. c. 8. Neganti aut omninò neÌ„sciâ—â—ti Scripturam Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 1. A. 3. †Quid si fateamur Fideles etiam Ecclesiae Authoritate commâ—ueri ut Scriptur as recipiant Non tamen inde sequitur â—oâ— hoc modo penitus persuaderi aut nullâ— aliâ— fortioréâ—ue ratione induci Quis antem Christianus est quem Ecclesia Christi commendans Scripturam Coristi non commâ—â—â—at Whitaker Dâ—sp de sacrâ Scripturâ Contrâ— 1. â— 3. â— 8. ubi citat locum â—anc S. Aug. ‖ Et 〈◊〉 Quibus â—â—â—emperaâ—â— dicentibus Credite Evangâ—â—io Therefore he speaks of himself when he did not believe * â—â—â—tum est quod teneâ—â—â— credere omnibus 〈…〉 in Sacro Canonâ— quia Ecclesia credit â—x ea ratione solum Ergo per prius magis tâ—â—â—â—uâ— Credere Ecclesiae quà m Evangâ—â—â—â— Aâ—tt 〈…〉 n. in 3 Dist. 24. Conclus 6. â—â—â— 6. And to make a shew of proof for this he â—alsifies S. August most notoriously and reads that known place not Niâ—◠〈◊〉 commoâ—â—râ—â— at all read it â—â—â— râ—mâ—elleret Pateâ— quiae dicit Augustinus Evangelio non Credereâ— nisi ad â—oâ— me compellâ—ret Ecclesiâ— Authoritas Ibid. And so also Gerson reads it in Declarat veritatum quâ— crâ—dendâ— sunt c. part 1. p. 414. §. 3. But in a most ancient Manuscript in Corp. Chr. Colledge Library in Cambridge the words are Nisi me commovâ—râ—t c. †Câ—â—â—n L. â— de Lâ—câ—â— c. 8. fol. 34. ◠§. 16. Num. 6. * Psal. 119 10â— Sâ—â—ctarum Scripturarum Lumen S. Aug. L. de verâ Relig. c. â— Quid 〈◊〉 Scripturum vanis umbris c. S. August â— dâ— Mâ—r. Eccl. Cathol â—35 * 1 Cor. 2. 14. †Orig. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. went this way yet was he a great deal nearer the prime Tradition than we are For being to prove that the Scriptures were inspired from God he saith Dâ—â—oc â—ssigâ—abimus â—x ipsis Diviâ—is Scripturis quâ— nos compâ—â—â—â—tâ—r moâ—â—riâ—t c. ‖ Princip 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—m hîc credimus propter Dâ—â—m non Apostolâ—s c. Hâ—nr à â—and Sum. A. 9. q. 3. Now if where the Apostoles themselves spake ultimate resolutio Fidei was in Deum not in ipsos per se much more shall it be in Deum than in prâ—sentem Ecclesiâ—â— and into the writings of the Apostles than into the words of their Successors made up into a Tradition * Calv. Instit. 1. c. 5. §. 2. Christiana Ecclesia Prophetarum scriptis Apostolorum praedicatione initio fundata â—uit â—â—icunque reperietur eâ— Doctrina c. * And where Hooker uses this very Argument as he doth L. 3. §. 8. his words are not If there be sufficient Light But if that Light be Evident †1 Cor. 2. 14. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 11. 1. †§. 16. Nâ— 13. ‖ Heb. 11. 1. * 1 Cor. 13. 12. And A. C. confesies p. 52. That this very thing in Question may be known infallible when 't is known but obscurely Et Scotus in 3. Dist. 23. q. 1 fol. 41. B. Hoc modo facile est videre quomocò Fides est cum aenigmate obscuritate Quis Habitus Fidei non credit Articulum esse verum ex Evidentiâ— Objecti sed propter boc quod assentit veratitati infundentis Habitum in hoc revelantis Credibilia †Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 14. Credere ullas esse divinas Scripturas non est omninò necessarium ad salutem I will not break my Discourse to â—iâ—â—e this speech of Bellarmine it is bad enough in the best sense that favour it self can give it For if he mean by omninò that it is not altogether or simply necessary to believe there is Divine Scripture and a written Word of God that 's false that being granted which is among all Christians That there is a Scripture And God would never have given a Supernatural unnecessary thing And if he means by omninò that it is not in any wise necessary then it is sensibly false For the greatest upholders of Tradition that ever were made the Scripture very ncessary in all the Ages of the Church So it was necessary because it was given and given because God thought it necessary Besides upon Roman Grounds this I think will follow That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe is omninò necessary to salvation But that there are Divine Scriptures the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe Therefore to believe there are Divine Scriptures is omninò be the sense of the word what it can necessary to Salvation So Bellarmine is herein â—oul and unable to stand upon his own ground And he is the more partly because he avouches this Proposition for truth after the New Testament written And partly because he might have seen the state of this Proposition carefully examined by Gandavo and distinguished by times Sum. p. 1. A. 8. q. 4. sine * Lib. 1. §. 14. †Protest Apol. Tract 1. §. 10. N. 3. * L. 2. §. 4. †L. 2. §. 7. L. 3. §. 8. ‖ S. Joh. 5. 31. He speaks of himself as man S. Joh. 8. 13. * L. 2. §. 7. * L. 3. §. 8. A. C. p. 52. A. C. p. 52. A. C. p. 52. * S. Luke 16. 8. †1 S. Pet. 5. 3. ‖ S. Basil goes as far for Traditions as any For he says Parem vim habent ad pietatem L. de Sp. Sanct. c. 27. But first he speaks of Apostolical Tradition not of the Tradition of the present Church Secondly the Learned take exceptions to this Book of S. Basil as corrupted Bp. Aâ—dr Opuse cont Peron p. 9. Thirdly S. Basil himself Ser. de Fido prosesses that he uses sometimes Agrapha sed ea solùm quae non sunt aliena à piâ secundum Scripturam sententiá So he makes the Scripture their Touch-stone or tryal And therefore must of Necessity make Scripture superior in as much as that which is able to try another is of greater force and superior Dignity in that use than the thing tried by it And Stapleton himself confesses Traditionem recentiorem posteriorem sicut particularem nullo modo cum Scripturâ vel cum Traditionibus priùs à se explicatis comparandâ—m esse Stapleton Relect.
hominis Consistit in quadam supernaturali visione Dei Ad hanc autem visionem Homo â—â—râ—â—â—gere non potest nisi per modum Addiscentis à Deo Doctore Omnis qui audit à Patre didicit S. John 6. 45. Thom. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 3. in c. * Deus Natura nihil frustra faciunt Arist. â— 1. de Coelo T. 32. Frustrà autem est quod non potest habere suum usunt Thom. ibid. Pun. 8. * 2 Pet. 1. 1â— * Quasi quidam fluvius est planus Altus in quo Agnus ambulet Elephas natet S. Greg. Praesat in Lib. Moralium c. 4. †In Lege Domini voluntas ejus Psal. 1. 2. Dulcior super mel faâ—nm Psal. 18. 11. passim ‖ Multa dicuntur submissis bumi repentibus animis ut aecommodatiâ—s pir humana in Divina consurgant Multa etiam figuratè ut studiosa mens quaesitis exerceatur utiliâ—s uberiùs laetetur invenâ—â— S. Aug. de Mor. Ec. Cat. c. 17. Sed nihil sub spirituali sensu continetur Fidei necessarium quod Scriptura per Literalem sensum alicubi manifestè non tradat Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 10. ad 1. * Credimus c. sicut ob alia multa certiora Argumentâ— quam est Testimonium Ecclesiae tum propter hoc potiffsmum qâ—òd Spiritus Sanctus nobis intùs has esse Dei voces persuadeat Whitaker Disput. de Sac. Scrip. Controvers 1. q. 3. c. 8. †Gal. 1. 8. Pun. 9. ‖ Cum Fides insallibili veritati innitatur Et ideo cum impossibile sit de vero demonstrari Contrarium 1 sequitur omnes Probationes qua contra fidem inducuntur non posse esse Demonstrationes sed solubilia Argumenta Tho. p. 1. q. A. 1. 8. c. * Fidei ultima Resolutio est in Deum illuminantem S. Aug. cont Fund c. 14. A. C. p. 53. Et vid. §. 16. N. 28. * Dixi sicut 〈◊〉 congruebat ad quem scribebam S. Aug. l. 1. Retract c. 13. †Nor is it such a strange thing to hear that Scripture is such a supposed Principle among Christians Quod à Scriptura evidenter deducitur est evidenter verum suppositis Scripturis Bellarm. L. 4. de Eccl. Milit. c. 3. â— 3. ‖ De Subjecto enim queritur semper non Subjectum ipsum * L. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. §. Quartò necesse est And the â—esuite here opâ—d A C. p. 49. * L. â— â— 8. †Whereas Bellarm. says expresly that in the Controversies between you and us Non agitur de Metaphysicis subtilit atibus quâ— sine periculo ignorari interdum câ—â—â— Laude oppâ—â—nari possâ—â—â— c. Bellarm. Praesat Opeâ—â—â—us prâ—â—â—x â— 3. ‖ His omnibus 〈…〉 est Controversia de Verbo Dei Neque enim disputari potest nisi prius in aliquo Communi Principio cum Adversariis 〈…〉 nos omnes omniâ—â— Hâ—reticos Verbum Dei esse Regulum fidei ex quâ de Dogmatibus judicandum sit esse commune Pri 〈…〉 ab omnibus concessum 〈…〉 c. Bellarm. Praesat Operib prafix §. ult And if it be Com 〈…〉 Pri 〈…〉 ab omnibus 〈◊〉 then I hope it must be taken as a thing supposed or as a Praecognitum in this Dispute between us * Colligitur apertâ— ex Tho. p. 1. q. 1. Aâ—g ad 1. Et Articulotum Fidei veritas non potest nobis esse evidens absolute Bellar. L. 4. de Eccles. Mit. c. 3. §. 3. †§. 17 18. Nâ— 2. ‖ And my immediate Words in the Conference upon which the â—esuite aâ—â—ed How I knew Scripture to be Scripture were as the â—esuite himself relates it apud â— c. pâ—â— 8. That the Scripture only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of our Faith Now the Scripture cannot be the only Fâ—â—â—dation of Fâ—â—â—h if it contain not all things necessary to Salvation Which the Church of Rome denying against all Antiquity makes it now become a Question And in regard of this my Answer was That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed and praecognitâ—â— before the handling of this Question †Hook L. 3. §. 8. * Hoc modo sacra Doctrina est Scientia quia procedit ex Principiis notis Lumine superioris Scientiae quâ— scilicâ—â— est Scientia Dei Beatorum Tho. p. 1. q. 1. a. 2. And what says A. C. now to this of Aquinas Is it not clear in him that this Principle The Scripturis are the word of God of Divine and most infallible Credit is a Praecognitum in the knowledge of Divinity and proveable in a superior Science namely the Knowledge of God and 〈◊〉 â—lessed in Heaven Yes so clear that as I told you he would A. C. consâ—llâ—â— it p. 51. But he adds That because no man ordinarily sees this Proof therefore we must go either to Christ who saw it cle 〈…〉 Of to the Apostles to whom it was clearly revealed or to them who by Succession received it from the prime Seers So now because Christ is ascended and the Apostles gone into the number of the 〈◊〉 and made in a higher Degree partakers of their knowledge therefore we must now only go unto their Successors and borrow light from the Tradition of the present Church For that we must do And 〈◊〉 so far well â—â—t that we must rely upon this Tradition as Divine and Infallible and able to breed in us 〈◊〉 and infâ—â—â—â—ble Paâ—th as A. C. adds p. 51 52. is a Proposition which in the times of the Pri 〈…〉 Church would have been accounted very dangerous as indeed it is For I would fain know why â—eâ—â—â—ing too 〈◊〉 upon Tradition may not mislead Christians as well as it did the Jews But 〈◊〉 with 〈…〉 Traditionis favore Legis praecâ—pta transgressi sunt Can. 14. in â— Mat. Yet to this 〈◊〉 are They of 〈◊〉 now grown Thâ—â— the Traditions of the present Church are infallible And by out 〈…〉 the Truth told many after them And as it is Jer. 5. 31. The Prophets prophesit untruths and the Priests receiâ—â— gifts and my people delight therein what will become of this in the end * Non â—teditur Deus esse Author hujus Scientiâ— quiâ— Homines hoc testati sunt in quantum Homines nudo Testimonio Humano sed in quantum circa eos effulsit virtus Divina Et ita Deus iis sibi ipsi in eis Testimonium perhibuit Hen. â— Gand. Sum. P. 1. A. 9. q. 3. * Corrumpi non possunt quia in manibus sunt omnium Christianorum Et quisquts hoc primitùs ausus esset multorum Codicum vetustiorum collationâ— confutâ—râ—tur Maximè quia non una linguâ sed multis continetur Scriptura Nonnullae autem Codicum mendositates vel de Antiquioribus vel de Linguâ praecedente emendantur S. Aug. L. 32. cont Faustum c. 16. * S. John 9. 29. †Maldonat in S. Joh. 9. Itaque non magis errare posse eum