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
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
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
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-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
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
no more Num. 8 Now if any man shall say that in this Point of Rebaptization S. Cyprian himself was in the wrong Opinion and Pope Stephen in the right I easily grant that but yet that Errour of his takes not off his judgment what he thought of the Papal or Roman Infallibility in those times For though afterwards S. Cyprian's Opinion was condemned in a Councel at Rome under Cornelius and after that by Pope Stephen and after both in the first Councel of Carthage yet no one word is there in that Councel which mentions this as an Errour That he thought Pope Stephen might Erre in the Faith while he proclaimed he did so In which though the particular Censure which he passed on Pope Stephen was erroneous for Stephen erred not in that yet the General which results from it namely that for all his being in the Popedom he might erre is most true Num. 9 2 The second Father which Bellarmine cites is Saint Jerome His words are The Roman Faith commended by the Apostle admits not such Praestigia's Deceits and Delusions into it though an Angel should preach it otherwise then it was preach'd at first and being armed and fenced by S. Paul's Authority cannot be changed Where first I will not doubt but that S. Jerome speaks here of Faith for the Praestigiae here mentioned are afterwards more plainly expressed for he tells us after That the Bishop of Rome had sent Letters into the East and charged Heresie upon Ruffinus And farther that Origen's Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were translated by him and delivered to the simple people of the Church of Rome that by his means they might loose the verity of the Faith which they had learned from the Apostle Therefore the Praestigiae before-mentioned were the cunning illusions of Ruffinus putting Origen's Book under the Martyr Pamphilus his name that so he might bring in Heresie the more cunningly under a name of Credit and the more easily pervert the peoples Faith So of the Faith he speaks And secondly I shall as easily confess that S. Jerom's speech is most true but I cannot admit the Cardinal's sense of it for he imposes upon the word Fides For by Romana Fides the Roman Faith he will understand the particular Church of Rome which is as much as to say Romanos Fideles the Faithful of that Church And that no wily delusions or cousenage in matter of Faith can be imposed upon them Now hereupon I return to that of S. Cyprian If Fides Romana must signifie Fideles Romanos why may not Perfidia before signife Perfidos Especially since these two words are commonly used by these Writers as Terms Opposite And therefore by the Law of Opposition may interpret each other proportionably So with these great Masters with whom 't is almost grown to be Quod volumus rectum est what we please shall be the Authors meaning Perfidia must signifie absolutely Errour in Faith Misbelief but Fides must relate to the Persons and signifie the Faithful of the Roman Church And now I conceive my Answer will proceed with a great deal of Reason For Romana Fides the Roman Faith as it was commended by the Apostle of which S. Jerome speaks is one thing and the Particular Roman Church of which the Cardinal speaks is another The Faith indeed admits not Praestigias wily delusions into it if it did it could not be the whole and undefiled Faith of Christ which they learned from the Apostle and which is so fenced by Apostolical Authority as that it cannot be changed though an Angel should preach the contrary But the Particular Church of Rome hath admitted Praestigias divers crafty Conveyances into the Faith and is not fenced as the Faith it self is And therefore though an Angel cannot contrary that yet the bad Angel hath sowed Tares in this By which means Romana Fides though it be now the same it was for the words of the Creed yet it is not the same for the sense of it nor for the super and praeter-structures built upon it or joyned unto it So the Roman Faith that is the Faith which S. Paul taught the Romans and after commended in them was all one with the Catholike Faith of Christ. For S. Paul taught no other then that One and this one can never be changed in or from it self by Angel or Devil But in mens hearts it may receive a change and in particular Churches it may receive a change and in the particular Church of Rome it hath received a change And ye see S. Hierome himself confesses that the Pope himself was afraid ne perderent lest by this Art of Ruffinus the people might lose the verity of the Faith Now that which can be lost can be changed For usually Habits begin to alter before they be quite lost And that which may be lost among the People may be lost among the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy too if they look not to it as it seems they after did not at Rome though then they did Nay at this time the whole Roman Church was in danger enough to swallow Origen's Book and all the Errours in it coming under the name of Pamphilus And so S. Hierome himself expresly and close upon the place cited by Bellarmine For he desires Ruffinus to change the Title of the Book that Errour may not be spread under the specious name of Pamphilus and so to free from danger the Roman Simplicity Where by the way Roman unerring Power now challenged and Roman Simplicity then feared agree not very well together 3 The third Father alledged by Bellarmine is S. Gregory Nazianzen And his words are That Ancient Rome from of old hath the right Faith and always holds it as becomes the City which is Governess over the whole World to have an entire Faith in and concerning God Now certainly it became that City very well to keep the Faith sound and entire And having the Government of a great part of the World then in her power it became her so much the more as her Example thereby was the greater And in S. Gregory Nazianzen's time Rome did certainly hold both rectam integram Fidem the right and the whole entire Faith of Christ. But there is nor Promise nor Prophecie in S. Gregory that Rome shall ever so do For his words are plain decet semper it becomes that great City always to have and to hold too integram Fidem the entire Faith But at the other semper 't is retinet that City from of old holds the right Faith yet But he saith not retinebit semper that the City of Rome shall retain it ever no more then it shall ever retain the Empire of the World Now it must be assur'd that it shall ever hold the entire Faith of Christ before we can be assured that that particular Church can never Erre or be Infallible Num. 11 Besides these the Cardinal names
that shall endeavour to shake the foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded Num. 11 Secondly If S. Augustine did mean by Founded and Foundation the definition of the Church because of these words This thing is founded this is made firm by full Authority of the Church and the words following these to shake the foundation of the Church yet it can never follow out of any or all these Circumstances and these are all That all points defined by the Church are fundamental in the Faith For first no man denies but the Church is a Foundation That things defined by it are founded upon it And yet hence it cannot follow That the thing that is so founded is Fundamental in the Faith For things may be founded upon Humane Authority and be very certain yet not Fundamental in the Faith Nor yet can it follow This thing is founded therefore every thing determined by the Church is founded Again that which follows That those things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church cannot conclude they are therefore Fundamental in the Faith For full church-Church-Authority always the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by and not comprehended in it is but church-Church-Authority and Church-Authority when it is at Full Sea is not simply Divine therefore the Sentence of it not fundamental in the Faith And yet no erring Disputer may be indured to shake the foundation which the Church in Councel lays But plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may convince the Definition of the Councel if it be ill founded And the Articles of the Faith may easily prove it is not Fundamental if indeed and verily it be not so Num. 12 And I have read some-body that says is it not you That things are fundamental in the Faith two ways One in their Matter such as are all things which be so in themselves The other in the Manner such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of Faith And that so some things that are de modo of the manner of being are of Faith But in plain truth this is no more then if you should say Some things are fundamental in the Faith and some are not For wrangle while you will you shall never be able to prove that any thing which is but de modo a consideration of the manner of being only can possibly be fundamental in the Faith Num. 13 And since you make such a Foundation of this place I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you It is a venture but I shall finde it untempered Your Assertion is All Points defined by the Church are fundamental Your proof this place Because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full Authority of the Church Then it seems your meaning is that this point there spoken of The remission of Original Sin in Baptism of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full Sentence of a General Councel First if you say it was Bellarmine will tell you it is false and that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenical Councel but only in Nationals But Bellarmine is deceived For while the Pelagians stood out impudently against National Councels some of them defended Nestorius which gave occasion to the first Ephesine Councel to Excommunicate and depose them And yet this will not serve your turn for this place For S. Augustine was then dead and therefore could not mean the Sentence of that Councel in this place Secondly if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenical Synod Plena Authoritas Ecclesiae the full Authority of the Church there mentioned doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenical Councel but for some National as this was condemned in a National Councel And then the full Authority of the Church here is no more then the full Authority of the Church of Africk And I hope that Authority doth not make all Points defined by it to be fundamental You will say Yes if that Councel be confirmed by the Pope And then I must ever wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authority of the Church and not bestow one word upon the Pope by whose Authority only that Councel as all other have their fulness of Authority in your Judgment An inexpiable Omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true Num. 14 But here A. C. steps in again to help the Jesuite and he tells us over and over again That all points made firm by full Authority of the Church are fundamental so firm he will have them and therefore fundamental But I must tell him That first 't is one thing in Nature and Religion too to be firm and another thing to be fundamental These two are not Convertible 'T is true that every thing that is fundamental is firm But it doth not follow that every thing that is firm is fundamental For many a Superstructure is exceeding firm being fast and close joyned to a sure foundation which yet no man will grant is fundamental Besides whatsoever is fundamental in the Faith is fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Desinition is the Churches foundation And so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in absolute and perfect Being before so much as her foundation is laid Now this is so absurd for any man of Learning to say that by and by after A. C. is content to affirm not only that the prima Credibilia the Articles of Faith but all which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church under Christ the Prime Foundation And here he 's out again For first all which pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith is not by and by fundamental in the Faith to all men And secondly the whole Discourse here is concerning Faith as it is taken Objectivè for the Object of Faith and thing to be believed but that Faith by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts is taken Subjective for the Habit and Act of Faith Now to confound both these in one period of speech can have no other aim then to confound the Reader But to come closer both to the Jesuite and his Defender A. C. If all Points made firm by full Authority of the Church be fundamental then they must grant that every thing determined by the Councel of Trent is fundamental in the Faith For with them 't is firm and Catholike which that
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
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
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
yet we yeeld as full and firm Assent not only to the Articles but to all the Things rightly deduced from them as we do to the most evident Principles of Natural Reason This Assent is called Faith And Faith being of things not seen Heb. 11. would quite lose its honour nay it self if it met with sufficient Grounds in Natural Reason whereon to stay it self For Faith is a mixed Act of the Will and the Understanding and the Will inclines the Understanding to yeeld full approbation to that whereof it sees not full proof Not but that there is most full proof of them but because the main Grounds which prove them are concealed from our view and folded up in the unrevealed Counsel of God God in Christ resolving to bring mankind to their last happiness by Faith and not by knowledge that so the weakest among men may have their way to blessedness open And certain it is that many weak men believe themselves into Heaven and many over-knowing Christians lose their way thither while they will believe no more than they can clearly know In which pride and vanity of theirs they are left and have these things hid from them S. Matth. 11. Fourthly That the Credit of the Scripture the Book in which the Principles of Faith are written as of other writings also depends not upon the subservient Inducing Cause that leads us to the first knowledge of the Author which leader here is the Church but upon the Author himself and the Opinion we have of his sufficiencie which here is the Holy Spirit of God whose Pen-men the Prophets and Apostles were And therefore the Mysteries of Divinity contained in this Book As the Incarnation of our Saviour The Resurrection of the dead and the like cannot finally be resolved into the sole Testimony of the Church who is but a subservient Cause to lead to the knowledge of the Author but into the Wisdom and Sufficiencie of the Author who being Omnipotent and Omniscient must needs be Infallible Fifthly That the Assurance we have of the Pen-men of the Scriptures the Holy Prophets and Apostles is as great as any can be had of any Humane Authors of like Antiquity For it is morally as evident to any Pagan that S. Matthew and S. Paul writ the Gospel and Epistles which bear their Names as that Cicero or Seneca wrote theirs But that the Apostles were divinely inspired whilst they writ them and that they are the very Word of God expressed by them this hath ever been a matter of Faith in the Church and was so even while the Apostles themselves lived and was never a matter of Evidence and Knowledge at least as Knowledge is opposed to Faith Nor could it at any time then be more Demonstratively proved than now I say not scientifice not Demonstratively For were the Apostles living and should they tell us that they spake and writ the very Oracles of God yet this were but their own Testimony of themselves and so not alone able to enforce Belief on others And for their Miracles though they were very Great Inducements of Belief yet were neither they Evident and Convincing Proofs alone and of themselves Both because There may be counterfeit Miracles And because true ones are neither Infallible nor Inseparable Marks of Truth in Doctrine Not Infallible For they may be Marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Deut. 13. Not proper and Inseparable For all which wrote by Inspiration did not confirm their Doctrine by Miracles For we do not find that David or Solomon with some other of the Prophets did any neither were any wrought by S. John the Baptist S. Joh. 10. So as Credible Signs they were and are still of as much force to us as 't is possible for things on the credit of Relation to be For the Witnesses are many and such as spent their lives in making good the Truth which they saw But that the Workers of them were Divinely and Infallibly inspired in that which they Preacht and Writ was still to the Hearers a matter of Faith and no more evident by the light of Humane Reason to men that lived in those Days than to us now For had that been Demonstrated or been clear as Prime Principles are in its own light both they and we had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge not by Faith But this is most apparent was not For had the Prophets or Apostles been ordered by God to make this Demonstratively or Intuitively by Discourse or Vision appear as clear to their Auditors as to themselves it did that whatsoever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth all men which had the true use of Reason must have been forced to yeeld to their Doctrine Esay could never have been at Domine quis Lord who hath believed our Report Esay 53. Nor Jeremy at Domine factus sum Lord I am in derision daily Jer. 20. Nor could any of S. Pauls Auditors have mocked at him as some of them did Act. 17. for Preaching the Resurrection if they had had as full a view as S. Paul himself had in the Assurance which God gave of it in and by the Resurrection of Christ vers 31. But the way of Knowledge was not that which God thought fittest for mans Salvation For Man having sinned by Pride God thought fittest to humble him at the very root of the Tree of Knowledge and make him deny his understanding and submit to Faith or hazard his happiness The Credible Object all the while that is the Mysteries of Religion and the Scripture which contains them is Divine and Infallible and so are the Pen-men of them by Revelation But we and all our Forefathers the Hearers and Readers of them have neither knowledge nor vision of the Prime Principles in or about them but Faith only And the Revelation which was clear to them is not so to us nor therefore the Prime Tradition it self delivered by them Sixthly That hence it may be gathered that the Assent which we yeeld to this main Principle of Divinity That the Scripture is the Word of God is grounded upon no Compelling or Demonstrative Ratiocination but relies upon the strength of Faith more than any other Principle whatsoever For all other necessary Points of Divinity may by undeniable Discourse be inferred out of Scripture it self once admitted but this concerning the Authority of Scripture not possibly But must either be proved by Revelation which is not now to be expected Or presupposed and granted as manifest in it self like the Principles of natural knowledge which Reason alone will never Grant Or by Tradition of the Church both Prime and Present with all other Rational Helps preceding or accompanying the internal Light in Scripture it self which though it give Light enough for Faith to believe yet Light enough it gives not to be a convincing Reason and proof for
as I do Num. 2 First then I consider Whether in those places of Scripture before mentioned or any other there be promised to the present Church an absolute Infallibility Or whether such an Infallibility will not serve the turn as Stapleton after much wrigling is forced to acknowledge One not every way exact because it is enough if the Church do diligently insist upon that which was once received and there is not need of so great certainty to open and explicate that which lies hid in the seed of Faith sown and deduce from it as to seek out and teach that which was altogether unknown And if this be so then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of Infallibility than the present Church which yet if it follow the Scripture is Infallible enough though it hath not the same degree of Certainty which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine that in a whole Chapter disputes five Prerogatives in Certainty of Truth that the Scripture hath above a Councel and at last Concludes That They may be said to be equally certain in Infallible Truth Num. 3 The next thing I Consider is Suppose this not Exact but congruous Infallibility in the Church Is it not residing according to Power and Right of Authority in the whole Church always understanding the Church in this place pro Communitate Praelatorum for Church-Governours which have Votes in Councels and in a General Councel onely by Power deputed with Mandate to determine The Places of Scripture with Expositions of the Fathers upon them make me apt to believe this S. Peter saith S. Augustine did not receive the Keys of the Church but as sustaining the person of the Church Now for this Particular suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth and shut out Errour and suppose the Key rightly used Infallible in this yet this Infallibility is primely in the Church Docent in whose person not strictly in his own S. Peter received the Keys But here Stapleton lays cross my way again and would thrust me out of this Consideration He grants that S. Peter received these Keys indeed and in the Person of the Church but saith he that was because he was Primate of the Church And therefore the Church received the Keys finally but S. Peter formally that is if I mistake him not S. Peter for himself and his Successors received the Keys in his own Right but to this end to benefit the Church of which he was made Pastor But I keep on in my Consideration still For the Church here is taken pro Communitate Praelatorum for all the Prelates that is for the Church as 't is Docent and Regent as it Teaches and Governs For so onely it relates to a General Councel And so S. Augustine and Stapleton himself understand it in the places before alleadged Now in this sense S. Peter received the Keys formally for himself and his Successours at Rome but not for them onely but as he received them in the person of the whole Church Docent so he received them also in their Right as well as his own and for them all And in this sense S. Peter received the Keys in the person of the Church by Stapleton's good leave both Finally and Formally For I would have it considered also whether it be ever read in any Classick Author That to receive a thing in the person of another or sustaining the person of another is onely meant Finally to receive it that is to his good and not in his right I should think he that receives any thing in the person of another receives it indeed to his good and to his use but in his right too And that the formal right is not in the receiver onely but in him or them also whose person he sustains while he receives it I 'll take one of Stapleton's own Instances A Consul or prime Senator in an Aristocratical Government such as the Churches is Ministerially under Christ receives a Priviledge from the Senate and he receives it as Primarily and as Formally for them as for himself and in the Senates right as well as his own he being but a chief part and they the whole And this is S. Peter's Case in Relation to the whole Church Docent and Regent saving that his Place and Power was Perpetual and not Annual as the Consul 's was This Stumbling-block then is nothing and in my Consideration it stands still That the Church in this Notion by the hands of S. Peter received the Keys and all Power signified by them and transmitted them to their Successours who by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to use them but still in and by the same hands and perhaps to open and shut in some things Iufallibly when the Pope and a General Councel too forgetting both her and her Rule the Scripture are to seek how to turn these Keys in their Wards Num. 4 The third Particular I Consider is Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant an absolute Infallibility in the Prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation and that this Power of not erring so is not communicable to a General Councel which represents it but that the Councel is subject to errour This supposition doth not onely preserve that which you desire in the Church an Infallibility but it meets with all inconveniences which usually have done and daily do perplex the Church And here is still a Remedy for all things For if Private Respects if Bandies in a Faction if power and favour of some parties if weakness of them which have the managing if any unfit mixture of State-Councels if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God if any thing else sway and wrench the Councel the Whole Church upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another Body or Councel and to take order for what was amiss either practised or concluded So here is a means without any infringing any lawful Authority of the Church to preserve or reduce Unity and yet grant as I did and as the Church of England doth That a General Councel may erre And this course the Church heretofore took for she did call and represent her self in a new Councel and define against the Heretical Conclusions of the former as in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus is evident And in other Councels named by Bellarmine Now the Church is never more cunningly abused than when men out of this Truth that she may erre infer this Falshood that she is not to be Obeyed For it will never follow She may Erre Therefore She may not Govern For he that says Obey them which have the Rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls Heb. 13. commands Obedience and
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.
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-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
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
first known and not need another thing pertaining to that Faith or Knowledge to be known before it But the Scripture saith he needs Tradition to go before it and introduce the knowledge of it Therefore the Scripture is not to be supposed as a Praecognitum and a thing fore-known Truly I am sorry to see in a man very learned such wilful mistakes For A. C. cannot but perceive by that which I have clearly laid down before That I intended not to speak precisely of a Praecognitum in this Argument But when I said Scriptures were Principles to be supposed I did not I could not intend they were prius cognitae known before Tradition since I confess every where That Tradition introduces the knowledge of them But my meaning is plain That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed before you can dispute this Question Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation Before which Question it must necessarily be supposed and granted on both sides That the Scriptures are the Word of God For if they be not 't is instantly out of all Question that They cannot include all Necessaries to Salvation So 't is a Praecognitum not to Tradition as A. C. would cunningly put upon the Cause but to the whole Question of the Scriptures sufficiencie And yet if he could tie me to a Praecognitum in this very Question and proveable in a Superior Science I think I shall go very near to prove it in the next Paragraph and intreat A. C. to confess it too Num. 4 And now having told A. C. this I must secondly follow him a little farther For I would fain make it appear as plainly as in such a difficulty it can be made what wrong he doth Truth and himself in this Case And it is the common fault of them all For when the Protestants answer to this Argument which as I have shew'd can properly have no place in the Question between us about Tradition they which grant this as a Praecognitum a thing fore-known as also I do were neither ignorant nor forgetful That things presupposed as already known in a Science are of two sorts For either they are plain and fully manifest in their own Light or they are proved and granted already some former knowledge having made them Evident This Principle then The Scriptures are the Oracles of God we cannot say is clear and fully manifest to all men simply and in self-Light for the Reasons before given Yet we say after Tradition hath been our Introduction the Soul that hath but ordinary Grace added to Reason may discern Light sufficient to resolve our Faith that the Sun is there This Principle then being not absolutely and simply evident in it self is presumed to be taught us otherwise And if otherwise then it must be taught in and by some superior Science to which Theology is subordinate Now men may be apt to think out of Reverence That Divinity can have no Science above it But your own School teaches me that it hath The sacred Doctrine of Divinity in this sort is a Science because it proceeds out of Principles that are known by the light of a Superior Knowledge which is the Knowledge of God and the Blessed in Heaven In this Superior Science This Principle The Scriptures are the Oracles of God is more than evident in full light This Superior Science delivered this Principle in full revealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles This Infâ—llible Light of this Principle made their Authority derivatively Divine By the same Divine Authority they wrote and delivered the Scripture to the Church Therefore from them immediately the Church received the Scripture and that uncorrupt though not in the same clearness of Light which they had And yet since no sufficient Reason hath or can be given that in any Substantial thing it hath been Corrupted it remains firm at this day and that proved in the most Supreme Science and therefore now to be supposed at least by all Christians That the Scripture is the Word of God So my Answer is good even in strictness That this Principle is to be supposed in this Dispute Num. 5 Besides the Jews never had nor can have any other Proof That the Old Testament is the Word of God than we have of the New For theirs was delivered by Moses and the Prophets and ours was delivered by the Apostles which were Prophets too The Jews did believe their Scripture by a Divine Authority For so the Jews argue themselves S. Joh. 9. We know that God spake with Moses And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses than they could in following God himself And our Saviour seems to infer as much S. Joh. 5. where he expostulates with the Jews thus If you believe not Moses his Writings how should you believe Me Now how did the Jews know that God spake to Moses How Why apparently the same way that is before set down First by Tradition So S. Chrysostome We know why By whose witness do you know By the Testimony of our Ancestors But he speaks not of their immediate Ancestors but their Prime which were Prophets and whose Testimony was Divine into which namely their Writings the Jews did resolve their Faith And even that Scripture of the Old Testament was a Light and a shining Light too And therefore could not but be sufficient when Tradition had gone before And yet though the Jews entred this way to their Belief of the Scripture they do not say Audivimus We have heard that God spake to Moses but We know it So they Resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward Principle than an Ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition And I would willingly learn of you if you can shew it me where ever any one Jew disputing with another about their Law did put the other to prove that the Old Testament was the Word of God But they still supposed it And when others put them to their Proof this way they went And yet you say F. That no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point B. § 19 Num. 1 I think I have shewed that my Answer is good and that no other Answer need be made If there were need I make no Question but another Answer might be made to assure us of this Point though we did not admit of any Word of God unwritten I say to assure us and you express no more If you had said to assure us by Divine Faith your Argument had been the stronger But if you speak of Assurance only in the general I must then tell you and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Insidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and Humane Proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe That such a City
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