the right state of the question All these things he says are necessary to a Church as a Community To follow him again we say first that we deny that all these things are absolutely necessary to a Church as a community for severall Churches have differed from one another in some of them as in Fasts and in the keeping of Easter and in forms of Prayer for as for the Liturgies they talk of they are filii populi Secondly though necessary to a Church yet not simply necessary to salvation Thirdly some of them may be necessary to a Church visible not necessary to the Church as invisible but he tampers about the change of the state of the question to make what is necessary to salvation to be necessary to a Church as visible and whatsoever is necessary to a Church as visible to be necessary to salvation which cannot be true For as for that that there is no salvation to be had out of the Church according to that of St. Cyprian in his Tract de simplicitate Prelatorum Habere non potest Deum Patrem qui Ecclesiam non habet Matrem yet this is to be understood of those that are desertors of the Church as is to be seen there by the comparation of antecedents and consequents and the whole scope of the Tract And therefore simply what is necessary to a Church visible is not necessary to salvation because without contradiction to the Father it may be possible to have salvation without the Church And therefore may I conclude that my Adversary did not well comply with his promise of stating this question a little more fully and distinctly And yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians Ans All he says is not true For the Sacraments are plainly enough set down in Scripture for all that is therein essentiall and necessary Then secondly the Argument is not concluding these things are not plainly set down in Scripture therefore very many and very important differences amongst Christians For first the unplainesse of them in Scripture is no efficient cause thereof for they might in those things give every one their liberty in their particular Churches as St. Cyprian doth plainly shew us in his second B. first Ep. where having spoken of some who did hold those things which they did once take up he speaks notwithstanding sed salvo inter Collegas pacis et Concordiae vinculo quaedam propria quae apud se semel sunt usurpata retinere quae in re nec nos cuiquam facimus aut legem damus cum habeat in Ecclesiae administrationis voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisquae praepositus rationem actus sui Domino redituras So he Therefore may they not all practise the same thing and yet there be no morall difference if negative differences not positive contentions if some yet not many if many yet not important in point of salvation because each Bishop in his Church hath free power to establish what he thinks fit And what Generall Council hath bound the universall Church in all these particularities Yea again the unplainess of these things in Scripture is not the causa sine quae non of these differences for there are differences with the Roman Church against others even in some things which are plainly set down in Scripture as in point of justification against Images to be worshipped against half Communion and generally the differences betwixt us And indeed what is there so plain about which some have not differed And then again how is this mended by a Council Not by their Council of Trent because in their Decrees the sense is not plain Therefore let them find better provision than God hath made directly in Scripture before they find fault with Gods direction as to those things which are important unto salvation for otherwise the term is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is beside the state of the question Nextly he objects the differences amongst us about Bishops with such and such a power and authority and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons and without these no true Sacraments things so necessary to the salvation of all men Ans This is a question belonging rather to the Church than to salvation and therefore we need not say any more to it Yet secondly the differences amongst us are for the most part stirred upon the occasion of the Bishop of Rome and therefore the Pontificians have no cause to impute to us as a fault the disagreement of Protestants in this point because it ariseth in great part from the domination of the Bishop of Rome They thought by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they could never sufficiently gainsay the Roman Bishop but by cashiering the whole genus and therefore to make all sure they denied all Bishops since the Argument is good a negatione generis ad negationem speciei if no Bishop then not universal Indeed here they erred if they thought that the position of Bishops did inferr the universall for it doth not follow a positione generis ad positionem speciei determinatae and therefore they might have Bishops and not him Yea the holding of Bishops by Divine right is as like a mean to destroy the Pope's authority as any other And to this purpose was it so holty disputed in the Trent Council and some lost their favor with the Pope for being eager in the affirmative And in the promotion of Cardinals at the end of the Synod the Pope professed he would passe by those who had stood for Residence and Bishops to be jure Divino For this institution of them by Divine right made them not to depend upon the Pope which would weaken his authority And therefore as to the Controversie about Bishops whether we derive them and their authority from Scripture my Adversary might have done well to have said nothing since if it be necessary to be determined clearly then the Trent Council is to be blamed for not determining it If it be not necessary then why doth he put it in amongst necessary questions To this therefore we say no more than thus Had there not been Bishops there would not have been a Pope and therefore is this an argument that there were Bishops in the Antient Church for how otherwise could there have been a Bishop universall so also had there not been a Pope there would have been lesse contention about Bishops as appears by this that if Petrus Balma who was the last Bishop of Geneva would have turned Protestant he might have continued Bishop As for no true Sacraments without Priests and Deacons we say if he takes Priests in a proper sense we deny that there is now any such to be because there is now no reall externall sacrifice If he takes it in the Analogicall sense we have no reason to doubt of true Priests being rightly ordained And for
the Church not to permit the use of Scripture unto the People and also you do abate of the Universal Proposition in the first Paper that Divine Faith in all things is caused by the proposal of the Church and therefore if you would hold you to this the Controversie would be lessened betwixt us for dato non concesso that we are bound to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God by the authority of the Church yet when we do thus believe it then the immediate ground of our Faith in those things clearly set down is the written Word of God and not the authority of the Church So then your first Number is indeed in no Number for you cannot mean thus that we cannot believe any thing proposed plainly in Scripture unlesse we believe the authority of the Church in that particular And therefore when you have proved the authority of the Church to be that which causeth and determineth our Faith of Scripture to be the Word of God you will say lesse then formerly and untill you do prove it you say nothing As touching the expressions you make in the second Number of him who answered the Papers give him leave if not to be the adversary herein yet to differ from you and to think himself to be one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England Neither did you intend by courteous and respective words to draw him to your opinion Soft words alone will not do it but soft words with hard arguments may do more When we see a clear demonstration of truth it is no courtesie to yeild assent for the Understanding cannot refuse Truth when it doth shew it selfe But whether the Reply as you speak be as clear a demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter let me have the liberty and the civility if in these businesses it hath any place not to determine Only it is very hard to say who doth optimum quod sic as they speak the best of the kinde Yet also wise men may think that if there can be nothing more expected towards ths defence of your first position the cause is wanting to it And certainly such a wise man and ingenuous as you be will not content himselfe with any ascertainment but that which is absolute and uncapable of Error Therefore not to deceive you by your own commendations put it to issue bring it to the test try the debate betwixt us by this rule of Wisdome and Conscience also Tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum It is certain that the Scripture is Infallible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is Infallible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the Rule and Ground and Cause of Faith As for the good designe you mention here and in your Title to guide Souls redeemed by Christ to the happy Eternity I congratulate to you that desire but I am sorry that such a zeal is better then the way you lead them in Assuredly those Souls redeemed by the Blood of Christ may and shall come to happinesse without any Infallible Judge of Controversies on Earth For first those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture matters of question we are in no such danger by the ignorance of reserving a purpose not to contradict what we shall be convinced in on either part Secondly We may be directed in these points by Judges though not Infallible as unto the quiet of the Church Thirdly Untill your Infallible Judge appears to be truly such it is the best way not to be bound intuitively to his dictates for then we might be in possibility of being bound to believe an errour which is repugnant to the understanding Ex natura rei So that until you make good the Title of an infallible Judge whom as you say we are obliged under pain of damnation not to disbelieve I shall hold up my hand onely in admiration of your confidence And whilest you do demonstrate this that we are bound under pain of damnation not to disbelieve this Judge of yours You say you do demonstrate your former Position that the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church is the ground of our Faith So you yes because you say that the Catholique Church is the infallible Judge To this thus Is it the infallible Judge whereunto we are bound to submit our understandings in all things or not if in all things then we cannot believe what the Scripture saith in plain points without the proposal of the Church which now seems contrary to your mind if not in all things but onely whether the Scripture be the Word of God or in cases of Controversie then do you now go lesse then in your former paper against the nature of implicite Faith Secondly that the authority of the Church is not it upon which we resolvedly rest our Faith of the Scripture or the determination of Controversies we shall see when you come to it Thirdly what do you mean by the Church do you understand it formally of the people or representatively in an Assembly of the Pastors if you mean it of the people also how is infallibility vested in them Are we bound to stand to their judgement and they are to be in obedience to their Pastors Well then it must be understood of their Pastors What of all or most or one If of all when did they all Vote if of most when did most Vote If of one ordinary Pastor with or in a General Council then remember whensoever in your sense you name a Church it be so taken of the Pope and his Council General which yet you will not evince to be infallible by their authority If they were infallible they must be infallible by the Word of God as to us and then that again is the first ground of Faith and also secondly you will find that many priviledges which you have spoken of as to the Church do not belong to the Church Representative strictly but to all the people of the Church as invisible which as such comes not into this Controversie If then you come again in any discourse keep you within and to the bounds of the question and speak of the authority of the Church in the same sense as to be the ground of Faith Divine in all points or in the same particulars For if you proceed from the Churches being the ground of faith as towards the Scripture to be the Word of God To conclude that therefore it is the ground of faith indefinitely or universally you commit the fallacy à dicto secundum quid as also if you proceed from its being the ground of Faith in points of Controversie to the being the ground of Faith in all things the discourse hath the same fault And yet you say that in your progresse you leave nothing of concernment in my reply unanswered and also that you conclude contradictorily to me Sir Let me here
to the Pontificians who assert the Government of the Church to be Monarchical by Christs Institution for if part of the authority be in the General Council then is it not all in one the Pope Or if the Council be called onely ad Consilium and they have no Votes decisive how doth this agree to all the former Councils wherein they had authority of Vote and he may determine without them as to advise since he determins without them in the authority and suppose they advise him to let them have power of Vote he can yet determine against them Fifthly How many Councils have been opposite to one another In which or with which did not the Pope erre The Nicene and that of Ariminum as before decreed contrarily one for the Arrians the former against them which did not erre and yet if neither had did ever any of the ancient Councils determine of their own infallibility And what think you of Nazianzens Opinion about Councils in his Epistle to Procopius the 42. Shall I tell you it I have no mind to derogate from General Councils but if you would have me tell you his judgement it is in such words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I am thus affected as to shun all meetings of Bishops if I must speak the truth for I never saw any Good end of a Synod nor that had an end of the Evils more then an addition Nay did not the Bishop of Bitâ—nto break out into these words in the face of the Council at Trent I would that with one consent we had not altogether declined from Religion to superstition from Faith unto infidelitie from Christ unto Antichrist from God to Epicurus Did he not say so And this may serve for your Answer to all the rest of this your Paragraph We cannot think it strange that the definition of a General Council should be fallible until you bring forth your strong reasons to induce my assent that such assistance was ever promised to a General Council as the Apostles and Prophets had or that any General Council had such assistance or that there was the same reason of such assistance And to say no more of this point measure the infallibility of the Trent Council by the determinations thereof in things of Religion and see how they agree with Scripture which you say is a rule of Faith and by this Argument be you judge of the infallible Judge Let us not see your Opinions by infallibility which you pretend but do you see your infallibility by the determinations it did put forth namely such wherein we differ and therefore I need not name them In the 22. Paragraph we have recapitulation and a passage of Luther which you use as an Argument ad hominem We Answer you do then hereby give us occasion to shew our ingenuity to truth that as we follow him and any other with it so we will not follow others or him without it But secondly If this book was written after his recession from the Church of Rome it is not meant of the Roman Church but of the Catholique Church which yet he doth not here compare with the Scripture but with a private man which seems to be spoken against Enthusiasts Neither doth he say that it is not lawful to doubt of the Church that whatsoever it saith is true but that it hath the Revelation of the Father to wit because it hath the revealed Word of God with it Or that the undoubtednesse of it doth not belong to it per se but per aliud because it hath for its priviledge the Revelation of Scripture And thus it maketh not for you Now this brings on your forecited passage of Saint Paul to Tim. 1.3.15 Where the Church of God is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth And you aske May not men rely securely upon the pillar of Truth May they not ground themselves assuredly on the ground of Truth no ground being surer ground and more infallible then the ground of Truth it self So you Supposing the words read according to this way we answer There is a double Pillar and a double ground one Principal the Scripture the other lesse principal and subordinate the Church now as this pillar and this ground is subordinate to the main pillar and ground we may rely and ground our selves but then the principal reliance and grounding must be upon that which is principal the Scripture For let me ask you likewise what is the Pillar and Ground of the Church Is it not the Scripture then the Church is but the pillar and ground by accident because that doth rely and is grounded upon the Scripture And therefore the Scripture is the more sure and infallible ground because what truth the Church hath it hath by participation and it is possible for it to hold forth and to have hung upon it somwehat which is false according to your own confession as I conceive you although not damnative And this doth well corroborate my inference from Saint Irenaeus words of the Scriptures being called the Pillar and Ground of Truth that therefore it is the Ground of Faith yes very rationally because it is the prime and supreme pillar and ground of Truth Yet you will raise a consequence upon mine for your cause thus If this consequence be strong which I deny not there is yet a stronger that the Truth is no where surer grounded then upon the pillar and foundation of Truth So you Sir What do you mean Do you make any difference betwixt the ground and foundation Do you mean that the Scripture is the ground of Faith but the Church is the Foundation This is your sense I suppose otherwise how a stronger Consequence For there is no comparative but where there is some difference And if this be what you would have then I think I may say I have what I would have and yet we are not agreed For then you confesse what I have hitherto held that the Scripture is the ground of Faith You said at first that the authority of the Church was the ground of Faith I said the Scripture was the ground of Faith and now you say as I say that the Scripture is the ground of Faith and so your contradiction is come into my affirmation But yet we are not agreed in that which you now superadd that the Church is the Foundation of Truth the Scripture is the Ground the Church the Foundation Is it so then have you changed the Question And why had we not the right state of it at first And was it not enough that the Church should be the ground of Scripture but must it be the Foundation in a more excellent sense I must not let this passe for your sake First what gives you occasion from the Text to assert the Church to be the Foundation signanter I do not see For the word in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie a Foundation but that which doth uphold
Gods wise Dispensations to his Church then when there was no Word written he would provide that that whereby the Church should be ruled should be extraordinarily conveyed and preserved but now when there is a Word written which is a most sufficient ground of Faith as you confesse there is no such cause of any word beside it If the Scripture be a Rule of faith as you do liberally grant then this is now a rule not onely inclusively but exclusively for otherwise it is not as large as that which is to be ruled and then they will not agree in the nature of Relatives and so it will not be a Rule of faith and manners For indeed the propertie of a Rule doth not only exclude lesse but also more It speaks against adding to it as a Rule of faith and manners necessarie in themselves as well as against the negative of not ordering them by it But then again your former reasoning is inconcludent because God revealed himself to his Church severally before he revealed himself by his Church And therefore this was not the way universally holding namely by the Church even before the Scripture was written And therefore much lesse doth it now bind when the Word of God is written Shew the like inspirations to the Church as the Prophets had by some infallible way and then we shall say that thus saith the Lord absolutely undisputedly without possibilitie of contradiction by the mouth of the Church in whatsoever it pleaseth to assert for the truth of God to be believed equally to Scripture and then a Council is to be believed without Scripture as the Nicene you mean was not believed or to be believed without for it did determine by it and by that Text I named I and my Father are one which Saint Athanasius doth apply to that question foure times in that Epistle you named And if you can prove that Saint Peters successours as you imagine had that transient gift of immediate Revelation as Saint Peter had then ye might say Peter spake by the mouth of Leo as infallibly as God spake by his Then the Arrians had as good a plea for their opinion as Athanasius had for they urged the Council of Ariminum and more Councils as Athanasius mentions in the same Epistle if what is said by the Church must be true then Athanasius must have changed his Opinion Or if you will have alwayes the Pope to be put into the authoritie of the Church for an infallible definition binding the consciences of all Christians to believe it as Gospel then must we believe that what he defines is Infallibly true What because he cannot erre No more then those fourtie Popes which Bellarmin speaks of in his fourth Book De Rom. Pontif. from the 8. chapter to the 15. who have been as he said accused of errour and some whereof none can say that all the distinctions and provisions which have been devised for this purpose can possibly justifie Pope Zephyrine a Montanist then he erred if not a Montanist then Tertullian is not to be believed Liberius as before an Arrian so Athanasius so Jerome so Damasus of him and Damasus could not erre as you hold yet an Arrian is surely in errour is he not Honorius was erroneous too and he spoken of in a former paper he a Monothelite as Melchior Canus saith some Catholicks hold and he proves it by Synods the sixth the seventh the eighth and he proves it by Epistles of Popes if all there be deceived how shall we believe authoritie of man As for Gregory the Third Bellarmin in the 12. chapter of that book doth openly say Vel certe Pontificem ex ignorantia lapsum esse quod posse Pontificibus accidere non negamus So he Then do you reconcile errour by ignorance with Infallibility How is he like to be Infallible in all his definitions when he was ignorant in the Gospel and therefore gave a Dispensation to a man to take another wife if the former had a disease that made her not able for the conjugal debt And Alphonsus de Castro in his 1. book 4. chapter hath this passage Omnis enim Homo errare potest in fide etiam si Papa sit Nam de Liberio à Papa constat fuisse Arrianum Et Anasterium Papam fuvisse Nestorianis qui Historias legerit non dubitat and a little after Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent qui fit ut sacras Literas interpretari possent And how then shall we by your Head of the Church or any other severally or together know the undoubted sense of Scripture infallibly But many necessary places of Scripture do not as you imagin need a Judge or not infallible All things also necessary to be believed are set down in Scripture and the contrary you have not shewed and therefore is there no need of an infallible Judge for the former or tradition for the latter as I have shewed Neverthelesse you proceed thus The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her authoritie to be our ordinary cause of Faith So you Answer As you suppose much for your advantage without colour of reason so you confound much without distinction First the term Revelation hath two respects one to the Agent and so it refers to the act and manner thereof another to the matter of that which is revealed that is the object The Revelation of God taking it passively for the object the matter which is revealed comes to us by the Church because the Word written ordinarily comes to us by the Church But taking Revelation of God actively with respect to the manner to bear your sense that God doth reveal himself infallibly by the Church either in the case of Canonical books or of doubts about the sense of Scripture so it doth not come by the Church and therefore is it not the ordinary cause of Faith which must rely upon infallible veritie as Aquinas speaks in his first part first question eight answer and therefore as before doth rely upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets which wrote the Canonical books and not then upon the Church who was bound to receive these Books and to communicate them So that the Church is concluded to be as an instrument only or a motive of this faith an instrument by its office and a motive by its authority And as for declaring undoubtedly the sense of Scripture So is there not any necessity of a Judge infallible which you would have the Church to be Secondly you suppose that which is not to be supposed that by my words since in those cases the revelation of God comes to us by the Church I must grant her authority to be the ordinary cause of faith and you say also that by my words in this place I must grant so Surely you here do commit
contradict that Thirdly you say I confesse that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may ground our faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered Yes but I also say that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in Scripture And Saint Peter saith That many to their perdition did misunderstand some hard places of Saint Paul So that misinterpretation of hard places may be the cause of perdition Fourthly you object Heresie and lewd life to some in whom you say we invested infallibity If I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other wayes to Heresie and bad life besides giving all scope to interpret the Scriptures as we judge fit So there be other wayes to Hell besides Drunkennesse but what doth this hinder drunkennesse from being the high way to Hell Again had not David who was a murderer and adulterer had not Salomon who was an Idolater the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing several parts of the Holy Scripture But to prevent this and all that else where you doe or can say against the Pope I in my 21. Number desired you and all to take notice of that which here you quite forget I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Council cannot erre How then doth the belief or faith of our Church I speak not of private mens private opinions invest infallibility in a person heretical or lewd Those Doctors who are of that opinion that the Pope can not erre in defining out of a general Council have other Answers to your Objection But that which you say is nothing against our faith which no man though never so little a Frenchman will say obligeth us to hold the Pope infallible in defining out of a general Council So much for this Whereas I said that we cannot have as things stand any other assurance to ground our faith upon then the Church you tell me I suppose the question Sir I did not suppose but onely propose what presently I meant to prove And where as you say that I do not well consider what I say when I say that as things stand we have no other assurance I answer That though God might have ordained otherwise yet as things stand the Church is the ground of our faith in all points speaking of the last ground on which we must stand not a Humane but a Divine ground The pillar and ground of Truth and it is the first because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God as I shall shew Numb 20. chapter 3. Neither doe we first believe the Church for the Scripture as I shall shew chapter 3. Numb 31.32 though against those who have first admitted the Scriptures for Gods Word we do prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church That I have said nothing against the practice of our Church appeareth by what I said just now shewing how the people deprave the hard places of Scripture to their own perdition 5. You charge me with abating from my first Proposition in which I said Divine Faith in all things was caused by the proposal of the Church because now I say that when by the infallible authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture Good Sir Do you not see that if I be asked why I believe in this case such a thing my first answer will be because God hath said it in the Scripture but if I be pressed further and why do you believe the Scripture to be Gods undoubted Word my last answer must be for the infallible authoritie of the Church by which God teacheth this Verity Surely the main question that serveth for the knowledge of the ground work of all our faith is to examin upon what authoritie at last all our faith doth rely when all comes to all Take then the belief of what particular points you please and examine upon what authority it cometh at last to rely and you shall ever find it to be the authoritie of God revealing by the Church 6. Now whether my adversary be indeed as he saith one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England or whether he hath shewed that Treatise of mine to be no Demonstration Let the indifferent Reader after due pondering the force of all Arguments determin Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you adde The Scripture is infallible but the Church is not therefore I must take for the ground of my Faith the Scripture For first The Scripture cannot be proved to be Gods Word without the Church be infallible as I shall shew chap. 3. Numb 20. Hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infallibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie Article of our faith That all the Scripture is the Word of God and therefore though upon her authority I believe Scripture to be most infallible yet because I ground this belief on her authoritie her authoritie is the last ground of Faith 7. And whereas in your next Number you promise such souls as have forsaken an infallible Church a happy eternitie upon this ground that those things which are necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture I pray God their souls come not to be required at your hands For this ground is most groundless in two respects First because no soul can have infallible assurance of the Scriptures being the true Word of God if the Church be not infallible and you refusing to stand on this ground make the last ground of all your faith to be I know not what kind of Light Visible to certain eyes such as yours are discovering unto them infallibly that such and such books be the infallible Word of God The vanity of which Opinion I shall shew chap. 1. Numb 20.21 22 23 24 25 26 27. Secondly It is most manifestly false That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture as I shew chapter 3. 8. In your next Paragraph I find nothing which I have not here answered onely you still force me to say I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Council cannot erre What proceeds from this authority we profess to proceed from the authoritie of the Church VVhen the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent 9. As for your complaint that your paper is not fully answered I suppose that if any thing of importance was left unanswered you will tell me of it here that I may here answer it Concerning my manner in answering of you I must tell you that St. Thomas and the chief School Divines for clarity and brevity use to proceed thus Having first
Christian or any word of the new Scripture was writen The meaning of St. Paul is that an Heretick might if he would clearly see his private doctrine to be opposite to the known publick Doctrine of the Church which Church then shined with the glory of infinite Miracles stupendious conversions and most eminent Sanctity and was then formed most completely with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith Yea you will say she was then more completely furnished to that end then ever she was since that time 49. Now because your cheif exception against the Churches being our judge is that you hold her not infallible besides all the proofs I have already brought of her infallibility I shall now add divers more But in the first place I must a little more fully tell you what we understand by the name of the Church He who is a seeker of his Religion must first believe the Universal Church diffused to be furnished by God with true infallible meanes to direct us securely in all doubts of faith wherefore he most prudently judgeth himselfe bound to joyne himselfe to her in faith being convinced that she directed most securely in faith Being thus also a seeker resolved to ioyne to these true believers When he proceedeth further to take a particular account in whom this infallible meanes given to the Church Universal of directing all securely in matters of faith doth consist he will readily find that it doth not consist in all the members of the Universal Church for Children and women be of the Church and yet their Vote in no mans opinion is required to the deciding any controversie in faith the Laiety also hath no decisive Voice in those points nor every inferiour Clergy man but only such as are Prelates Overseers and Governors over the rest So that in fine this infallible direction is Unanimously affirmed by us all to be undoubtedly settled upon the authority of the prime Pastors Prelats of the Church assembled together in a lawfull generall Councell with their cheife Pastor and Head the Bishop of Rome Against a thing so easily to be understood you cry out aloud of strange intricatenesse and inextricable proceedings And yet I think most clowns of this Land did easily understand what was meant by a decree of the Kingdome to the which the consent of King and Kingdome assembled in Parliament as the custome was for many years together was required Now what more difficulty is there to know what we meane by a decree or Definition of the Church The kingdome representative was the king and the Parliament The Church representative is the cheife Bishop with the full Assembly of the other Bishops in a lawful Council the Decrees and definitions of which assembly be the decrees and definition of the Church In a thing so cleare you labour your uttermost to raise a thick mist 50. First you obiect who can be certain by a divine faith of the lawfulnes and Regularity of a Pope in his first creation I answer that when I speake of a Pope defining in a lawfull Councel as I do now speak I speak of such a Pope to whom the Church submitted in calling the Councel and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful head to preside in the Councel These very acts supply all defects in his election and do make it evidently credible that he is the true head who thus admitted defined with the Councel as their acknowledged head Secondly you ask when there was Pope against Pope who of the people could distinguish the right Pope I answer that he shall ever be esteemed the right Pope to whom the Prelates of the Church shall unanimously obey when he calleth them to meet in a general Councel and in this Councel to preside over them To to have two such Popes as these are at one time is impossible And this is the only time in which a Pope defineth with a lawful Councel What you say of Popes not defining in such a Councel is not our Case put me a Pope defining with a lawful Councel and then prove him fallible if you can Whether the Popes definitions out of a Councel be fallible or infallible maketh nothing to this purpose Only this is evident if they be infallible out of a Councel they be infallible in a Councel Thirdly you think that no Controversies can in our opinion be decided when there is a doubt who is true Pope And you ask who is then to call a Councel And when the Councel is called you think us to think that this Councel can define nothing without a Pope I doubt not Sir but you have found a clear answer to all this in Bellarm lib. 2. de Concilis Chap. 19. that although a Councel without a Pope cannot define any article of faith yet in time of schisme it can judge which is true Pope and provide the Church of a true Pastor if she had none who thus provided by the Councels authority may dissolve the Councel if he pleaseth or if he please to have them remaine assembled they remaine so now by his authority and can define as well as other Councels called by the Pope In that meeting in which the Pope was to be chosen or declared the undoubted Pope the Prelats of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves Fourthly you ask how we can by divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulnes and generality of Councels for Councels have been called by Emperours not by Popes Sir your Church which never had nor shall have generall Councel is to seeke in all things belonging to them Our Church almost in every age since Constantine hath been visibly assembled in general Councels and by perpetual practice hath been sufficiently informed to deliver by the assistance of the Holy Ghost all that she hath received from her ancestors to be essential to a true Councel and to deliver this point infallibly To your obiection in order I answer first That it is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institution by which either Emperours be assured to be still found in the world or that when they have that dignity they be by divine institution invested with a power to call Councels We seek for this divine Institution This we will not admit until it can be shewed in Scripture or Tradition the fact of calling sheweth not divine Institution Secondly as for the Prelates of the Church we can shew divine Institution Act. 20.28 Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock to feed or govern the Church of God And 4. Epho Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ that henceforth we may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine c. Thirdly The Emperour is not by divine Institution Lord of the Christian world No nor of any considerable part
and therefore we cannot fasten them upon the mis-interpretation of Scripture and now you denie to me the Assumption and you say the Church doth not invest infalibility in the Pope but as defining with a lawfull Councell generall you meane Well then Liberius is not defended in the point of subscription as neither you nor Bellarmin can defend him but yet you defend the Roman infalibility in faith because as you say he was not the Subject of it Rather than infalibilitie should be disparaged the Pope shall be degraded from his infalibilitie This you say here occasionally to denie unto me the use of this instance but this is not the seat of the matter therefore we shall say here no more than is necessarie And first you had no great cause here to except against the assumption since you grant the consequence of the Conclusion 2. You should consider what you say that the Pope of himself is not the Subject of infalibilitie for by this you raise a war against you of your Roman Catholicks which did think they knew the sense of the Roman faith as well as you for sure you are not more than a private Doctor All the Canonists you know are against you and the Jesuites are against you particularly Bellarmin in his 2 b. de Concil Autor 15. Ch. Where he maintaines this position that the Pope is the Head of the whole Church Where he hath this argument Ecclesia universalis est unum corpus visibile ergo habere debet unum Caput visibile The universall Church is one visible Bodie therefore it must have one visible Head otherwise it will seem a Monster But we cannot imagin any other but the Pope Therefore the Pope is the Head of the whole Church simul together so he and that is of a Councill And so it was determined in the Lateran Councill Now where shall be the infalibilitie of the Church placed then but in the head of a councill You are all wont to say that the Church is infalible and a Councel infallible and that the Pope is infalible Now how will you com-promise the truth of these but by saying the Church is infallible by the Councill and the Councell by the Pope Then the Pope is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this infalibilitie The Church formally taken is the multitude of the Faithfull the Church representatively is the Councell the Church virtually is the Pope If the first subject receptive of Autority be the people then do you lay the ground of the Independents if the Councill then the Pope hath his power from them and so he is not the immediate Vicar of Christ as Bell. in the former b. and ch the 15. And then also what will become of the condition of the primitive Church wherein there was so long a time before any General Councel And then also in reason there should be a General standing Councel if infalibility primarily flows from them And have the Council a coordinate power or subordinate Which will you say If coordinate then to be sure the Pope is not Head of the Church which you will be loath to say If subordinate then he is Head and therefore infalibility must be subjected in him as Prince of the Church unless you will divide infalibilitie from Authority And if so what Autoritie will there be of this infalibilitie But to go on You tell me that those Doctors who are of that opinion that the Pope cannot erre in defining out of a general Councel have other answers to your objections So you put me to seek for their answers You will not tell me who they are nor what they are nor where they are to be found So then as to them my objections are proper and their opinions may be as probable or more than yours and it may seem more and therefore you will not condemne your own opinion by comparing with their answers for if their Answers be solid then your opinion is nought And then you are pleased to put me off thus but that which you say is nothing against our faith which no man though never so little a French-man will say obligeth us to hold the Pope infallible in defining out of a Generall Councell Ans But that which you say is nothing against the faith of others which no man though never so little a Courtier at Rome will say obligeth them to hold the Pope not infalible in defining out of a general Councel But why do you say our faith Is your faith the same with the faith of the Roman Court If not then you divide from them If so then you must hold that none are true Catholicks in your sense but those who hold themselves such by Subjection to the Bishop of Rome not as in a Councell but simply to him Yea do you not think that you must necessarily be subject to the Laterean Councill which had the Popes consent and that determined the thing expressissime as Bel. in his second b. de Concil cap. 13. Namely that the Pope is above the Councel in a sense opposite to the Counsell of Constance and Basill who defined a Generall Councell above the Pope and could infalibly determine without him And if you say that Belarmin said there some did doubt whether the Laterean Councell was a generall Councell yet you must tell us your opinion what you hold of this Councel yea in his seventeenth ch he defends it for a generall Councel and holds the point to be a decree concerning faith but saies it is a doubt that the Councell did not decree it proprie ut decretum fide Catholicae tenendum and therefore they that think otherwise are not properly hereticks yet canot be excused from great temeritie However I hope that Councel was more considerable with you than the judgment of private Doctors yea also than the French Catholicks Yea if you will be a right French-man in this opinion you should hold that the Councell may be infalible reclamante Papa and this comes up to the stresse of the question and therefore you do not speak determinately your opinion concerning the right state of the question but you do latere post principia in saying that no French-man will say you are obliged to hold the Pope infalible in defining out a Generall Councell If you be a French-man in this speak out and tell us your opinion not conjunctively but disjunctively whether the Councell may be infalible without the Pope But I commend your wisdome that you hold the safest way For this Bellar. and all will say that the Pope defining with a Councell cannot erre But Bellarmin will also hold infalibilitie to be in the Pope who is the head of the whole Church even congregated and that all Authoritie is in him as the Monarch of the Church but in this you are an Ephectick So certainly you do agree amongst your selves about the Capital point of the Roman infalibilitie As one said in another case of action so may I say
conscience tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum hold that which is certain leave that which is uncertain it is certain that the Scripture is infalible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is infalible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the rule and ground and cause of faith So I in my last But you leave out all notice of my disputing this with you in point of wisdome and cut off your own confession and would have me to make this a Demonstration absolutely in point of truth You do wisely to shuffle it off since you cannot well bear the dint of it in the way of discourse ad hominem And yet also is it necessarily certain that if our grounds be more certain then your's are not because they are contradictorie But you making it to be in my account an absolute Demonstration answer first the Scripture connot be proved to be the word of God without the Church be infalible as I shall shew ch 8. But this was not now the particular question I disputed upon your own concession And therefore this is nothing to my Argument Apply your answers to my proceeding with you upon your account of prudence And then secondly Though it be not a Demonstration that the Scripture is infalible the Church not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture yet it concludes upon advantage for though the Church were infalible in the testimony of the Scripture to be the word of God yet the Scripture were to be the immediate ground of all necessary points Thirdly Neither doth it contradict my assertions that the Church is not the rule and cause of faith though it were infalible in this Testimony for if it were infalible in this yet would it not follow it should be infalible in all as I have told you and you have not answered me yet And then Fourthly The Scripture may appeare to be the word of God though the Church be not infalible as will be shewed in answer to you And therefore all you say upon this hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie Article of our faith that all the Scripture is the word of God and therefore upon her Authority I believe the Scripture to be most infalible yet because I ground this belief upon her Authoritie her Authoritie is yet the last ground of faith I say all this hath no sound discourse and will come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even into nothing upon the two last answers first because if from hence I believe the Scriptures to be the word of God yet am I not therefore ex vi consequentiae bound to hold the Church the last ground of faith in all things for it plainly concludes a dicto secundum quid We can hold that the Generall Councell may be infalible in points necessary though not in all points whatsoever although you must hold infalibilitie in all or none because you say all is delivered by the Church upon her Authority equally without respect to the matter And then secondly upon the last answer which was the fourth we shall cashiere all that is said here for that it will appear that the Scripture is the word of God without the Churches Authoritie for the corroboration of the Title And so there needs not the infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weighty Article of faith that all the Scripture is the word of God â—um 7. And whereas in your next number you promise such souls as have forsaken an infalible Church an happy eternity upon this ground that those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture I pray God their Soules come not to be required at your hands Ans I am beholding to my Adversary for his good wishes that I may not answer for other mens souls But if he takes here forsaken formally and an infalible Church really so not accounted only to be so by him I deny it that we have so forsaken such a Church for neither is it infalible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides they have rather forsaken us and the whole Church in pretending infalibilitie to themselves and Domination over all that will be true Christians No particular Church can be bound to another more than as it doth comply with the Catholick Church now then if any do leave the Catholick as the Roman hath done we cannot join with them wherein they leave the Catholick either in point of faith or discipline If we are to give respect to a particular Church as an actuall part of the whole then where it separates we must follow the whole A turpis est omnis pars universo suo non congruens And yet they first made the actuall Schism when the Popes Bull prohibited communion with us So then take forsaken rightly and an infalible Church really we deny the charge Take them otherwise we denie the consequence of danger But my Adversarie would prove our ground to be groundless first because no Soul can have infalible assurance of the Scriptures being the true word of God if the Church be not infalible c. Whereof you promise more Num. 20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Ans This we have had so often without proof that it is to no purpose to say any thing to words for Arguments Scaurus negat as Alphonsus de Castro opposeth his adversary Yea also you refer me here for proof in the third ch Your conclusion is here your proof there so far is your conclusion from proof Premisses were wont to be before the Conclusion but your opinion is already shewed vaine as touching the ground of your certainty and your vanity of my opinion I shall refute when you shew it And so you serve me for the second respect wherein you say my ground is groundlesse for you say it is manifestly false that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture as you shew ch 3. Your conclusion here that it is manifestly salse c. I believe will be too large for your Arguments as it is now too soon We follow your order as having nothing to do untill you begin In your eighth Par. You say I find nothing in the next Par. which I have not here answered Onely you still force me to say again I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre what proceedeth from this Authority we professe to proceed from the Authority of the Church When the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent You say you find nothing in it which here you have not answered And what can I finde here but that you say Only you force me to say again Here is some ingenuitie that you seem not to love to swell your papers with repetitions Therefore prove it once say it no more Quid
verba audiam facta cum non videam But if I might be so bold doth not your term force referre to the act say not to the Adverb again as if you had no mind to be put upon expressing where the infalibilitie of the Church lies determinately I suppose by your words if you were let alone you would expresse your selves in the safest way confusely and in generall that this infalibilitie is in the Church whether diffused as you say or representative or virtuall But it is very wisely determined by my Antagonist that it is in the Pope when he defines with a General Councel that if the Pope be convinced of errour it may be answered he did not define with a Councell if a Councel be deprehended of error it may be said the Pope did not confirm the decrees of the Councell And yet the needle doth not stand full North it trembles yet therefore in omnem eventum it is said when the Church diffused admitteth those definitions her consent is more apparent May some questions be asked here which may be in answer to this when you say immediately before what proceeds from this authority we profess to proceed from the Authority of the Church Does my Adversary mean that it proceeds from all the Authority of the Church The Pope with a lawful Councel hath Authority in the Church and what comes from them comes from the Authoritie of the Church objective because this Authority is for the use of the Church and comes from the Authoritie of the Church subjective because it comes from them who have Authoritie in the Church But is the Pope and Councell the adequate subject of the Authoritie of the Church If not then infalibilitie must not be rested in them without the consent of the Diffused Church Secondly If you meane the Pope and Councell agreeing as you do what becomes of the Church as long as they do disagree as the fifth Generall Councell and Pope Vigilius did Yea that Councell obtained against the Pope and is accounted by the Church Universall in the number of the Generall Councels without the Pope so that your opinion of the infalibility of the Church to consist in a Pope defining with a Councel is not sound because if it be infalible it may be infalible without the Pope since it hath vim Consilii without the Pope yea maugre the Pope Thirdly If Pope and Councel do consent what if the diffused Church will not admit these definitions what then And I think I have reason to suspect that such words are here cast out by my Adversary as may insinuate as much as if the Church diffused might dissent If they may discent then they may discent from that which is infalible or else infalibilitie must also include their consent If they may not dissent then what meane those words when the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent Me thinks somewhat is intimated here to such a purpose as if the consent of the Church diffused besides what is included in the Representative should formally concurre to the making up of the complement of infalibilitie So that the Church diffused should not conduce to these infalible Decrees by way of object or as a passive principle but also actively by its consent and this symbolizeth with Alphonsus de Castro and others of your Church who do settle this infalibilitie in the Acceptation of the Church Universall And by their opinion the Church diffused must have a freedome to dissent or no power Par. 9. You say as for your complaint that your paper is not fully answered I suppose that if any thing of importance was left unanswered you will tell me of it here that I may here answer it Ans Back reckonings are not wont to be very pleasant But now it seems too late to returne an account of my Adversaries omissions if he was my Adversary who now is under the reverence of the dead and the protection of the grave Otherwise I might say there needs not be any particular account in an universall Negative Materially little is answered and formaly lesse But a Treatise was sent me for an answer yet in satisfaction to our own cause and in respect to this demand without dis-ingenuitie I shall it may be now and then note some defects And if any should think that the fight is over when one of the parties is dead and that actio moritur cum persona I shall onely say this that this is no personal quarrel but respects the common cause of truth and yet also is it fit that I should returne an answer to a reply as it would be accounted And when this is done I have done And now comes my Adversarie to a vindication of the manner of answering me before Concerning my manner of answering you I must tell you that St. Thomas and the chief School Divines for claritie and brevitie use to proceed thus And then he gave me an account of their method which is sufficiently known To which I answer St. Thomas and the Schoolmen do use a very good method in the way of their discourse pro and con but our case is not the same For my adversary was not now upon a problem to dispute upon either part but upon an opposition to that which is defended against him They had not one particular Adversary against whom they were to direct all they said but my Antagonist had My Antagonist sent me a chalenge which was fastned upon me I answered in short he replyed I rejoined with an answer and he returned a Treatise in termino And therefore this will not serve How doth he apply his positive Divinity to my oppositive How is the Treatise applied to my distinctions Do his positives fall flat against my denials This way the Reader to be sure shall know what he saies but not what I said distinctly because the Treatise is not punctually applied to my answer Had Bellarmin produced his Adversaries Arguments no more fully than is done in that Treatise there had not been such need of being so carefull that in all Italy as Sir Edwin Sandys notes we should not finde a Bellarmin's Controversies for fear any should peruse them and not finde his Adversaries Arguments satisfactorily answered by him Therefore we may have leave to admire those words which come from the Treater that your intention in rejoining by a Treatise was to have the most important matter distinctly orderly and fully put down And by having done so I finde this great commoditie that your Answer becomes more methodicall and my reply to your Answer more clear and perspicuous and the Reader seeth still how orderly the Combate is I wonder much how this can be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Could a Reply to my answer be more methodicall than in following me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I followed the opponent Or could my Answer again be more methodicall than in following a Reply had it been proper and formall
definition of the Doctors but rather is evidently against it by which he concludes in this his review the definition of the Roman Doctors to be false And yet this is the plainest text for them And therefore let the Popish Collier be convinced by some clearer Argument out of Scripture to believe as the Church believeth or else to the eternall good of misled souls confesse that if you give not private men leave finally to resolve themselves in Scripture the Roman can finde no means upon earth to put an end unto the main controversies the Church not sufficing for this end unlesse we should take the Church as commending us to Scripture for our direction under pain of being accounted not Christians For how are we bound upon pain of Damnation to believe that Jesus is the Christ without that which is written in Scripture But it will be said that the Popish Collier should not have leave given him to examine the Scripture's sense no more than the Arrian Cobler should have leave to examine the Councils definition but both should absolutely rest in the definition of a Council To this we answer severall things First it is a mighty prejudice to the Roman cause that they account blind obedience to the Church a duty This darke lantern that none should see them but their own men breeds great suspition The Roman cannot perswade the Arrian to rest in a Council and therefore a Council will not make an end with all of all controversies Thirdly if the Arrian were to rest in a Council he would say the Council of Ariminum were as considerable to him as the Council of Nice to the Homorsiasts Fourthly General Councils for the purest times of the Church were not celebrated and therefore this is not the universall way of satisfaction and absolute determinative of faith Fifthly we have no prejudice against the four General Councils we embrace them and they make no prejudice against us therefore if we hold as they hold points of faith we are as saveable as they Sixthly the plainest Council they have for them is the Council of Trent and yet the Popish Collier cannot acquiesce in that because although they say it was yet he may doubt whether it was a free Generall Council And I hope since my Adversary saies we must take infallibility from the Generall Council we may have leave to examine whether that was a free Generall Council And here we must contradistinguish the Church unto the Council and we must not believe the Council for the Church for then the infallibilitie would lie in the Church not in the Council Well and must we take the Councill to be right and good from it self suppose we were to receive undisputedly the Decrees of faith in a Generall Council yet we must be assured first that this was a Generall free Council then it is left us to examine the Council though not the definitions for if the Scripture cannot prove it self as they suppose then the Councill cannot and therefore the Popish Collier may examine the Council And how shall he content himself about the Councill in the generalitie of it since there was so few persons in it sometimes but forty three Legates and Abbots being put in and some titular Bishops onely sometimes forty eight for a good while not above sixty the Prelates of other Nations not there not a Bishop or Divine of all Germany there in the yeare 1546 no French Bishop could be there and therefore no Generall Council As the French King said page 314. and by reason of the paucitie of the persons then there forty eight Bishops and five Cardinalls and not one of the Prelates remarkable for learning and some of them Lawyers and some Courtiers the Decrees of the Council about Apocryphall books and making authenticall a translation differing from the Originall did displease in Germany as it is set down in the History of the Trent Council p. 163. * And for the freenesse of it the Collier might deny that by severall passages for absolute autority was given to the Legats of the Pope to procreed without consent of Council p. 113. Derogations from the liberty of the Council noted p. 232. the Bishop of Fiesole complained of to the Pope for reasonable freedom p. 167 8. Amongst the three things the Pope admonished his Legates one was to take beed that by no means the Popes authority be disputed on p. 164 And yet this is the point which formally denominates the Popish Religion And his being Head of the universall Church as he presumes is the point which denominates their Church the Roman Catholick Yea it was protested against by the French King which was of force against it according to some prohibentis conditio potior as p. 320. And therefore cannot the Popish Collier finally resolve his faith in a Council upon its own conciliarie authority And assuredly if the Arrian Cobler and the Popish Collier were both to dispute the same point one by the Scripture the other by the Council the Cobler would sooner convince the Collier by Scripture which he doth acknowledge as certain than the Collier the Cobler by the Council which he doth not acknowledge so yea if the Collier and the Cobler were equally disposed to finde truth indifferently to their opinions the Cobler might sooner settle his mind in Scripture than the Collier in a Council for the Cobler hath no more to do than to finde out the sense of Scripture and then he is satisfied but the Collier when he hath found out the sense of the Council is not satisfied because if he were assured that a free and generall Council was infallible he might yet doubt of the hypothesis whether this Council were so But it is false in these that a generall Council though free is infallible and that we are bound to believe so for why then would not the Pope put the main question out of question Either he did suspect the point himself or did suspect his own Subjects in the Council or did suspect that it did not bind unto necessary belief or else he was deceived in point of prudence which is most unlikely to have that waved Num. 5. He proceeds This your Doctrine maketh the definitions of true Councils and their finall determinations to be indeed no definitions nor finall determinations at all Ans This in reasoning would prove a Schisme a dicto secundum quid Because I deny them to be finall in your sense therefore I deny them to be finall in all sense is not consequent It doth not follow from the deniall of one species to the deniall of all Finall definitions as to humane Tribunals I acknowledge them but finall so as to exclude the examination of them by Scripture I deny Final as to peace and not to be refractary I grant but finall as to necessary assent upon the Councils account I deny That we may finde truth by them I yield because so many abilities united with Gods
besides how many may dissemble what they see Who so blinde as he that will not see If the Chinites say they onely themselves see with both eyes those of Europe with one eye and the rest of the world with neither surely those of Europe who will not see are blinde of both eyes The Council of Trent according to them an Oecumenicall Council if they could see better things not cleare why did they not in all points declare first what was to be held and then what was to be anathametized And if they were more like to see what is cleare how came they to abandon the use of the cup Nay how came they to establish a transubstantiation seing our Saviour after consecration said plainly St. Mark the 14. the 25. I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine Was his blood the fruit of the Vine But sixthly to make use of his disjunction places are either cleare or not namely places of Scripture if not cleare no absosolute necessity of a generall Council so as no salvation to be had without clearing the difficulty if clear what need then of a Council we may be saved without some knowledge we cannot believe without infallibility Seventhly let them reconcile this necessity of a Council to the sayings of Paul the fourth who said he had absolute authority that for himself he had no need of instruction because he knew Christ did command that he had no need of a Council for he himself was above all that he could remedie all inconveniences by his own authority as is said of him in the History of Trent the fifth book And therefore my Adversary or the Pope is out All he saies here also for Councils makes no more than a morall assurance which how much it is lesse than the certainty of faith Mr. Knot will tell Indeed he says Again I may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error as I shall shew chap. 4. Yes surely if this could be proved there were no more to be said this principle will beat down to the ground all opposition which an humble soule can make We confesse it when it is proved But surely this is as much in question as any thing else Untill the supposition be grown into a proof we have then yet but prudentiall Arguments to faith And yet we say secondly if he would have been so wise as to have stated it with a judicious moderation thus that we may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error namely as to destroy the foundation that might have been better endured but he hath granted that this will not serve his purpose as Mr. Knot notes he must have the Church secure from any error These Catholicks as they call themselves cannot speake under the forme of universality which is more easily contradicted And we suspend our assent untill the demonstration comes We may not nor ought to know this We ought not for we cannot We cannot but by Scripture For if they say we may know it by the Church it is the question Neither doth he prove our opposition of Councils in their most fundamentall ground upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to sit as Judges c. Num. 8. For first it doth not appeare that all Councils have supposed themselves to sit as Judges with full commission to determine securely all controversies if the terme security be taken securely from all error And if they have not so defined it that they do so sit as Judges or sit as Judges so how shall we according to my Adversaries principles believe it since we are to fetch all truth from the Church in a Council And secondly if all Councils did establish it a Principle we yet expect a reason hereof since neither Pope nor Council have absolute authority nor both to together to bind our belief Yea thirdly the Council of Nice did sit upon as good ground as any other Council but the Council of Nice did examine all things by Scripture so in the History of the Nicene Council prefixed in a Vatican Edition it is said Rebus itaque in utriusque partem jactatis et ad certam Divinarum Scripturarum normam perpensis communi omnium suffragio Arrius et Eusebius damnantur Things being discussed on both sides and weighed and examined according to the certain rule of Divine Scriptures by common consent Arrius and Eusebius are condemned Therefore are not we to look for a Dictatorian sentence but a rationall determination out of Scripture and if we finde this this doth oblige all Christians to conforme to their definitions But fourthly we deny that we are so obliged by such censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven We are not obliged by them neither in themselves nor because they were so held nay also we deny that they were so held to be ratified in Heaven unlesse with this limitation clave non errante Yea again these do not oblige us to conforme our judgement their power respects the outward act Yea again if so Honorius was rightly condemned in the sixth Generall Council therefore was an Heretick yea and Pope Vigelius was an errant Heretick for defending the three chap. against the fifth Councill And the Romanists are bound to think the Condemnation just or the Council to be null And yet that Council thought it self sufficient in authority without and against the Pope and therefore they all differed from my Adversary who saies the Council does not bind without the Popes confirmation He saies further others will tell you divers other opinions you have with Councils But if he would have had me answer for my self he must have told me the particulars Generalia non pungunt and they make no action To distinguish infallibility from their authority is no opposition untill infallibility be infallibly made good And even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils when you charge them with speaking contradictions Ans First credâ—t may be given in sensu diviso to those that may possibly speake contradictions if we meane by credit a morall respect of humane faith but if he meanes credit of faith Divine I then grant it that such credit is not to be given to them which may speake contradictions for how are they then infallible as they must be by my Adversary if they ground faith As was said of the Milisians Non sunt stulti sed possunt stulta facere they are not fools and yet can do foolish things so a Council may be wise and yet may speake foolish things and I may give some credit to them in generall for their wisedome though it be possible for them to say that which includes a contradiction Secondly I may charge Councils with contradictions to one another though not to themselves For
the Council or after If before also then we see that one man is not to be controlled by a multitude and therefore why are we upbraided in our Religion with the paucity of the Professors If after then we see that a Council is not an effectuall meanes to put an end to all Controversies Fifthly he doth not advisedly put in these words the lawfull Pastor confirming their Acts. This is not discreetly applied to the Council of Nice for as to this he was first deceived in thinking we would swallow his supposition of the lawfull Pastor in his sense of universality and singularity We deny the Pope to be the lawfull Pastor Secondly Liberius did subscribe S. Athanasius's banishment and how shall we then take the confirmation of a Council from a Pope when he subscribes against it Thirdly the Nicene Council was not confirmed by the Bishop of Rome more than by some other Bishop Yea as it was called By the Emperor Constantine so was it confirmed by him And therefore by my Aduersaries principles The authority of the Nicene Council should be but humane because it had not its esse formale by the Pope Yea sixthly neither is it necessary that after the Nicene Council he should oppose a greater humane authority upon the authority of the Council as if it had been more than humane for he opposed the greater part before Seventhly he did not well consider what he said for if he might oppose upon his supposition a greater humane authority then untill they prove the authority of a Council to be Divine so as infallibly assisted with infallibility there may be a greater authority than of the Nicene Council which is not true notwithstanding And if he meant so he opppsed a Generall Council more than I. In the following words of this number I was glad to finde him so soberly defending the title of Roman Catholicks He saies To avoid this very strife impertinent now to our purpose I used that very name by which no others are excluded This is ingeniously said but he knew that the Romanists are wont to usurp this title And I had good reason to take good notice of it lest my silence should be mis-interpreted For some are wont to take advantage at what is said and also at what is not said But indeed doth he give up the title to the use of others also as not exclusive to them neither in comprehension which would make a contradiction nor in jurisdiction then why doe men contend so much for the Roman Church as Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches Why is added in their Creed to the Catholick Church the Roman Why in the Trent Council was none accounted Catholicks but them Indeed also this is the wisest course if the knot cannot be untied to cut it off so he to avoide the proof of the appropriation of the title to them hath denied the appropriation But this confession I suppose the Priests of Rome would not well accept for in very deed it goes near to the ruining of the cause And this plainly contradicts himself in his own principles thus the Catholick Church is infallible so he says still The Roman Church is onely infallible So he said in the end of the former Treatise then the Roman Church is onely Catholick Now he says he did not exclude other Churches and yet no Church Catholick but the Roman And in this impertinent strife you say many things of which you prove not one If such a put-off might be allowed to me I might soon have done I need not say much to what is said because so little is said to any purpose But he knew he was pinched by mention of the falsification of the Nicene Council about the superiority of the Bishop of Rome and severall other particulars which needed no proof to an intelligent man let the world judge whether if any thing could be excepted against what I said solidly my Adversary would have forborne the offering of it to consideration And also to my former vindication of our Doctrine about the authority of Councils which had four answers he replies nothing but that of Athanasius which might more happily have been left out In the twelfth number he would refute me by noting a dangerous consequence flowing from the premisses of our Doctrine Num. 12. his discourse is resolved into this Syllogisme Texts of Scripture are not able to decide all necessary controversies unlesse as they send us to the Church by themselves as I shall shew in my next ch But I hold texts of Scripture onely infallible Therefore we shall never have an end of Controversies unlesse we understand the texts of Scripture which speake of Christ's promises to the Church of assistance infallible as St. Math. 28. ult and others which we shall have an account of in the next ch This is the sum of his ratiocination Ans We shall shew the civility not to prevent the use and businesse of the next ch but this reasoning will be valid no where it will not grow stronger by the next age Therefore we say not to repeat repetitions that as to the major proposition we deny it upon our account of all necessary Controversies although not upon his account All things plainly necessary are so laid down in Scripture as there needs be no controversie thereabouts In things of question simple error doth not damn But those who make no difference of belief by respect to object or use but do take all upon the proposall of the Church are apt to enlarge the number of things necessary because all upon that account are with equall necessity to be received And yet as hath been noted they have no reason to multiply the number of necessary Controversies for with them there is no necessity of believing any thing but this that the Church is infallible But then secondly as to the major if he meane by themselves so as the Scriptures should formally decide Controversies he fights with his own shadow for it doth not contradict when we do not affirme we say not that formally any Controversie is decided by texts of Scripture but that in things plain there is no necessity of any such decision and in many Controversies the Scripture doth as well in the principles decide it as the Law doth differences civil If he meanes by themselves therefore so as that they do not decide them without sending us to the Church we answer by distinguishing that first in things plaine there is no need of the judgement of the Church In things of Controversie there is need of the Church but not need of infallible determination There is an ending of Controversies speculatively when the judgement is resolved by infallible Scripture there is an ending of Controversies practically by authority of the Church so as to binde the person against disturbance Now the question betwixt us is of the former ending of Controversies which cannot be performed by the Church And dare any man that soberly reads all
therefore cannot their authority so much sway us yet their expressions for us might weigh with our Adversaries who so much boast of them at least they might say somewhat to what answers have been made to their quotations of them And if we must not make use of them because we cannot account them infallible then my Adversaries discourse might have been also well spared for I am sure his discourse is not infallible He having then dismissed the hearing of the Fathers sine die he comes upon us thus And indeed your Doctors would faine dispute out of Scripture onely Ans If onely be taken in order to the ultimate resolution of faith we would indeed dispute out of Scripture onely because the Principles of Scripture are onely to us infallible but if onely be taken exclusively to all use of the Fathers we deny it To shew that our Doctrine is truely Divine we prove it out of Scripture to shew that it is not new we compare it with the sayings of the Fathers yea the judgement of the Fathers hath it self to faith as a rationall dispositive but not as an inerrable determinative this Priviledge we reserve to Scripture which is to us the formall object and ground of Divine faith And if they can shew us sic dicit Dominus for absolute credence to the Church we have done But he gives us his Crisis why we would faine dispute out of Scripture onely Because they find it to be true that the Scriptures alone cannot decide many Controversies but by some Interpretation or other they think themselves able to elude the force of Arguments drawn from Scripture onely the sayings which are not in Scripture are in no case receivable by them Ans Well guessed Surely we have here a meer Cavill by a non causa doe not our Adversaries think that they are as cunning at interpretations as we They are wont to brag of the brave Education and Learning therefore likely they can tell how to elude an Interpretation as well as others and there were those that told them they did do so in the Trent Council Catilina Cethegum And would not our Adversaries have all the dispute referred to the Church which they can order as they please as a Lesbian rule either corrupting the stile or adultering the sense as Tertullian said of the Hereticks then or prohibiting Authors against them to be read Yea what debates were there about the sense of the Decrees of the Council of Trent Yea some decrees were purposely put into such termes of ambiguitie that so the mind of the Council might be drawn into different senses according to the pleasure of the Litigants as the Author of the History relates Secondly herein then appears our ingenuity in that we dispute with you by that which is capable of other senses whereas they would have us to be referred to the sense of the Church which they think cannot be accommodated for us Thirdly we do not say that no saying is receivable in any case by us but out of Scripture but receivable equally upon necessity to salvation we still deny every saying we receive sufficiently what is said by the Church in point of Discipline and what is said in point of faith we receive with due reverence not with absolute faith And certainly we seem to give more respect to the Church than they do to Scripture if all of them be like my Adversary for so he goes on Whereas indeed there is no good got by disputing of texts of Scripture but either to make men sick or mad as our Adversaries may daily see by their fruitlesse Scripture-Combates with the Anabaptists the Sabbatharians and other upstart Sectaries Ans Omne mendacium quod de Deo dicunt quodammodo genus est Idololatriae as he said in his Prescriptions and this which is falsely said of the word of God is for the Idoll of the Roman Church The Scripture hath it self to the Church as the Emperor to the Pope in the Roman account and as the Moon hath it self to the Sun so hath the Emperor himself to the Pope the Moon depends upon the Sun for light the Emperor upon the Pope for authority and the Scripture upon the Church for light and authority But first he argues from the deniall of the act to the deniall of the power yea from the deniall of the effect to the deniall of the power because there is no good got by disputing of texts of Scripture therefore but our obligation to Scripture doth not follow from the effect but from the institution Secondly as for those points which are necessary there needs be no disputing upon the texts Thirdly the unsuccesse follows from the perversnesse of those who will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and have more mind to victory than verity Fourthly why had they then in the Trent Council the Bible in the midst of them Why did the Divines urge Scripture Yea why did the Nicene Fathers determine the consubstantiality of the Son by Scripture Yea why did Tertullian combate with Marcion out of Scripture in his de carne Christi ch 6. Si non probant quia nec scriptum est and again sed nihil de eo constat quia Scriptura non exhibet and again ch 7. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers And why did he proceed against Hermogenes by Scripture in his 22. ch against him Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem and again Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina But fifthly if we should send the Sectaries to your Church for satisfaction would this make an end of the differences For the first question would be how your Church was proved to be the infallible Church The Scripture all that do dispute out of it do acknowledge to be the word of God but all do not acknowledge your Church Sixthly if the Church could end so well all differences why are so many questions undetermined as about the Pope in relation to temporals in relation to Councils about predeterminations about Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Why are not these made an end of Nay seventhly Hereticks have combated with the authority of the Church and many were not satisfied with the determinations of Trent Therefore let them not prejudice Scripture by the obstinacy of Sectaries Had not the Sectaries been set on and armed with their principles they might sooner have been over come and if nothing should be made use of for our necessary direction but that which is convictive of all my Adversary might in reason have sate still or brought better Arguments Sectaries are not apt to be ruled by the meanes of Scripture but his mediums are not apt to rule me without it But the Church of God is the Kings High way by which a man is ever to travell to truth Ans I could smile at it that Pontificians should use this expression that the Church is the King 's High way when as some principles of some of the chief of them do dispose
he constitutes the sense imperially not expounds it rationally and makes his authority antecedent to the sense and not the sense antecedent to their definition but ipso facto this must be the meaning thereof because he saith so Is this a clearing of the Scripture Fifthly it must be clear to me that the Councils have cleared the difficulty otherwise I should deny my assent to the text because it is not clear in the construction and yet should give my assent to the Councils determination and yet this not clear to me neither Now then if they will have us judge of the definition of the Council that so we may determine our assent for we must by judgement conclude the Council clearly to determine the sense in question or else we cannot give any due assent why will they not allow us to judge also of the sense of Scripture that so rationally we may believe it Sixthly as the clarity is wanting as I suppose he means but to some texts so also but to some persons and therefore is there not an absolute need to all of this infallible Judge Yea how many took liberty to suspend their assents to the determinations of the Council of Trent and yet they would have a Council to be binding to others Seventhly is the defect of the degree of claritude negative or privative not privative for that will charge God And so that of Nilus will be true to be sure he that accuseth the Scripture accuseth God but if negative it is no other than God thought fit for his word And do we think that God would require under pain of damnation belief to his word and yet not give unto it competent clearnesse respectively to the points of faith necessary to be believed Eighthly what then must we think as towards their salvation of all those antient Christians for some centuries wherein they had not a Generall Council were they all lost Or had they faith without a Generall Council If the former how do they say the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church And why do they also not dis-acknowledge those times of the Church to have been the purest And were so many of them Martyrs and yet lost But if the latter then also may we have faith without a Generall Council sufficiently to salvation Ninthly the senses of Scripture as to particular points were clear to the Fathers in the Council severally before they gave their suffrages on either part were they not If not how came they to vote for that sense which was right If so then the product of the Councils definition is not it which clears the sense of the Scripture to them and consequently not to us Tenthly and lastly if the Scripture doth not give us clear texts for all points necessary and therefore we must stand to the authority of the Church then also the Church shall not be it upon which we rely as a competent Judge because the Church even in a Council doth not deliver the sense of Scripture so clearely as to end all controversies And this manifestly appears by perusall of the Trent History wherein it frequently occurs that the Decrees and Canons were so framed as to give a liberty of divers senses for more satisfaction and satisfaction to more And this last account in this last particular doth make sufficient reply to what he speaks in the ten next following lines wherein he objects to me the difference of those amongst us to proceed from our acknowledgement of Scripture to be the triall of faith Surely he did not the same day consider the differences at home It is not proper to object that which is common we can retort it mutatis mutandis And we see with our eys those who submit to the authority of the Church as infallible to disagree mainly in these very points which the Synod hath spoken of for one thinketh in his Conscience the Church is to be understood one way another thinketh in his Conscience it is to be understood another way and this other is licensed interpretatively by the Synod to differ even from the greatest authority upon earth as the other thinks because he thinks the Synod hath defined for him And then he may easily have license to differ from another private man and that other private man hath as good ground to differ from the other So our Adversaries incussion of our differences amongst us is patly repercussed upon them and with more weight and edge too because secondly we holding a difference of points by the matter are capable of more excuse for our disagreements in things not fundamentall than they who holding all equally upon the proposall of the Church must needs differ in that which is equally fundamentall because all that is defined by the Church is equally so Yea also he that errs in one point with the Papists according to Mr. Knot 's argument hath faith in none And one of them that differ about the sense of the Council must needs err though it is undetermined which And therefore thirdly would not my Adversaries have been pleased with such an argument from me The Pontificians do disagree therefore their opinion is the cause thereof and if that should be the cause we should all disagree and in all Neither fourthly doe we license any to differ but they take their natural liberty to suspend assent till they see the word of God as well as upon good reasons you move men to chuse your Religion And therefore as to necessaries Scripture is the possible means of Vnion in the interior man in which faith onely doth consist And this Union we are to consider in order to Salvation not the exteriour union which is not so necessary though simply desirable As far as truth will go it must go with it but not further And yet this is now and then mingled in the discourse of my Adversary and very politickly because the Church hath more conjunction with an exteriour union of peace than an interiour of faith What you add of God his sufficiently providing for his Church by Scripture onely is in this sense true that in Scripture we read that we are to hear the Church c. Ans Surely I do not owe in ingenuity any thanks to any Adversary of mine for this that they seem thus to please themselves in a study how to make our opinion tollerable If I do I will soon be out of debt as soon as I can say that their opinion about the Church to be the High way to truth is so far true because it was wont to send us to the Scripture for our rule of faith and manners as hath been shewed Secondly what Council ever determined the sense of that precept goe tell the Church to be understood of a Council as to bind absolutely to the belief of all that they propound And if a Council had not defined this the sense then how shall we know it to be the sense by my Adversary because
he makes a calumny because he thinks it as impossible for the Pope to say that vices are vertues as if God the Father should say such a thing was a vertue and Christ should preach such a thing was a vice Ans It would do well as he said to use soft words and hard arguments waving therefore his reflexions we say first the calumnie is not in saying of him what he sayes not but in the mis-interpretation how he speaks it And to this we say it is not necessary to be a calumny for it may be spoken of him as it was spoken by him in way of supposition and may be spoken of him to be spoken by him And therefore if it was no calumny in the Cardinall to say so it may be no calumny in me to say of the Cardinall that he said so They will think a notionall supposition makes no slander whosoever be the subject and whatsoever the predicate and therefore if he thinks that I must speak it of Bellarmin slanderously he must also think that Bellarmin might speak it so too Secondly if it were as impossible to suppose any such thing of the Pope as that God should say such a thing is a virtue and Christ should preach it to be a vice Then why hath the Pope such a Council to assist him It is well put into more hands for fear of a defectibilitie in one And if it be said that this was spoken of the Pope only hypothetically to his saying so as being assisted with a Council it is easily answered that this is not the Jesuits opinion that the Pope is infallible onely with a Council And by the way if a Pope be infallible onely with a Council why did Pope Clement say that a Council was always good but when it medled with the Popes authority Is there any point more considerable than the Popes authority And is he onely infallible in a Council and yet is he afraid that this point should be meddled with in a Council Then he must suspect his own cause in their opinion Well and can God err or can Christ err in precepts and particular judgements as Bellarmin confesseth in the same chap. it is not absurd that the Pope should err And can God or Christ err in commanding any thing unprofitable or under too heavy a punishment It is not absurd to say this of the Pope although it belongs not to subjects to doubt of this but simply to obey as he says in the same chap. Nay if to speak so of the Pope as Bellarmin says in way of supposition were a slander then Bellarmin slanders the Pope also in his second b. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 29. Itaque sicut licet resistere Pontifici c. Therefore as it is lawfull to resist the Pope invading our body so is it lawfull to resist him invading souls and troubling a Commonwealth and much rather Si Ecclesiam destruere niteretur if he should endeavour to destroy the Church Thus he Then he shall defend me therefore may I be clear of slander against Bellarmin or he guilty of slander against the Pope But then thirdly put case I account it no slander against the Pope to affirm a possibility in him to say that vice is virtue The Consequence I hope is good ab esse ad posse he hath done so therefore is it possible To command disobedience to Christ under colour of obedience to him is to say really that vice is virtue and this the Pope hath done in the injunction of his dimi-Communion as before And let them before they presse this slander any further first help Bellarmin to purge the Pope of all those errors in faith and determinations affirmative against Gods precepts negative in point of practice And when they have done this then we shall be afraid to suppose a possibility if we cannot find further instances of fact And therefore they shall not scare us with a charge of calumnie untill they have strongly asserted such an impossibility Indeed impossibilis conditio facit negativam we cannot err in obedience if we cannot err in commanding but that he cannot err in commands is yet sub judice and not himself All Protestants do say as I noted that the Scripture Num. 19. and onely the Scripture is left us by Christ for our Judge to end all Controversies Ans This is no genuine account of our opinion They do not assert the Scripture to be a Judge in formalities They say there is no need of such a Judge as Papists would have since all necessaries unto faith and hope and charity are sufficiently delivered in matter and form without any exigence of such a Judge And in this they agree with all right Catholicks not with Hereticks as he would have it And Hereticks he may know as before have urged the Church for them and St. Austin hath dealt with Hereticks by Scripture and therefore if Hereticks use the Scripture must we not since Hereticks urge the Church by his argument they must not they know the rule Duo cum idem faciunt non est idem It is one thing to use Scripture for the proof of some points and another thing to say Scripture and onely Scripture must be the Judge for all Controversies To what end then is all you say against me as against one misliking the use of Scripture Ans This is all I have from him in account to five or six answers I gave him to the charge against me for using Scripture as Hereticks do Thus easily he puts me off Well to this put-off we say first that this distinction of his imports a confession of his to use Scripture in some points then is not the proposall of the Church necessary to all points and this is some abatement of his former universality Secondly those points he allows the use of Scripture in are necessary as was intimated before since Bellarmin doth own the Scripture for a rule also And if Scripture doth deliver some points necessary quatenus taeles then all necessaries as before neither need these necessaries be many as Mr. Chillingworth hath observed and Tertullian also in effect Certa sunt in paucis The rule of faith used by the Fathers was not numerous in particulars Thirdly we say not that the Scripture is a proper Judge much lesse for all Controversies And therefore if they will stand to what is here said by them and withdraw that which is not duly said of us let them take the Counters and cast up the difference betwixt us They allow the Scripture in some points we allow the Church in some points they allow the Scripture I suppose in some points necessary we allow the Church much in points not necessary If they would extend some points necessary to all points necessary which are not many we not upon condition but freely would give the Church due reverence in points of question and thus there would be soon an end of the Controversies betwixt us and in
they were read in the Church The strength of this reasoning is resolved into this proposition Whatsoever is read in the Church is to be taken for Canonical and this proposition is false by the practice of the Church of England by St. Jerom's distinction yea also by the Canon it self for it sayes Liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur Itmay be lawfull also to read the passions of the Martyrs when their anniversary days are celebrated And also if that reason did bind the Fathers in the Council of Carthage to establish them as Canonical why did it not as well bind St. Jerom in whose time the books also were read if they were universally read And if the Church of God was sufficiently instructed in point of faith without them till St. Austin's time which was above four hundred years after Christ as Bellarmin confesseth why may not the Church be well enough without them still For either there must be nothing in them materiall or expositionall which is simply necessary for Gods Church or else the Church of God for the purest and best times must be unprovided thereof as Canonically to ground faith If they confesse the former we have what we would if the latter besides other consequences they destroy the rule of faith to Councils themselves or as some now will say by succession of tradition Therefore by this instance he gets nothing it is neither proof nor disproof Num. 28. Here he triumphs before the victory he doth here put a new face upon an old argument If you say that we must have a speciall Spirit that is new eyes to see it then you who have this Spirit are all Prophets discovering by private Revelation made to your selves that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover This argument prophylactical preserves them little A speciall Spirit is considerable two ways either in ordine ad subjectum or in ordine ad objectum it may be speciall in the first sense and not in the latter Now it is the speciall Spirit in the latter sense which makes the Prophet when some new thing is revealed thus we deny any speciall Spirit which rather belongs to them who will not have all things for necessary faith and manners revealed in Scripture that so they may find in the Church by tradition the points of their Religion which they cannot find in Scripture as is noted But also the speciall faith in the first sense may be subdistinguished it is considerable either as oppositly to those who have not faith or respectively to those who have faith in the first way we say it is speciall for all men have not faith as the Apostle speaks 2 Thes 3.2 but if it be taken respectively to those who have faith we say it is not speciall but common for there is no true dogmaticall faith but such as Stapleton and their Schoolmen confesse Yea this argument may be returned to them too if they say they are inlightned by the Spirit to see all truth infallibly to be delivered by the Church they have the new eyes and they are all Prophets discerning by private revelation made to them selves that which all mankind besides could not discover So then the other old argument which here he incrustates that if the evidence of Scripture to be the word of God were such as of a prime principle as this It is impossible that any thing should be and not be in the self same circumstances then all should assent to it as they do to this principle is again slighted for first every one hath not that supernaturall light or eye to see the truth of that first principle that the Scripture is the word of God which we have said before but then secondly the prime principle in Metaphysicks are not so clear as to exclude all necessity of means of knowledge of them though they do naturally perswade assent so there are means of knowing the Scripture which do not prejudice their autopisty through the Spirit of God and therefore there may be a failing of belief Yea thirdly the Spirit bloweth where it listeth John 3.8 Yea fourthly many truths are assented to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he said which are not prophorically acknowledged And yet some of their own men have confessed this truth being overcome by the soveraignty of it Fifthly it is retorted if the authority of the Church were the prime principle for the evidence of faith then all would assent to it but all doe not assent to it therefore by his own argument the Church's authority is not the prime principle But the assistance of the Spirit he then pleads a fortiori for the Church the Church having far more proof of her assistance than every private Protestant Ans First we have no to need be put upon the compare with the Church If the Church have infallible assistance herein yet private Christians may have it too and that would be sufficient for us in this point But secondly the Church is no otherwise infallibly certain hereof than we for this is assured to every one that votes it in the Council the same way if indeed they doe give their suffrage upon a ground infallible Thirdly the private Christian is assured hereof by the Spirit for himself therefore the Council needs not be infallible herein as to teach it because we are thus taught of God If the compare were thus if the private Christian were thus assisted to teach others much more the Council this would be somewhat like but the private Christian doth not undertake this and yet doth it not follow that this infallibility doth attend the Council which doth undertake to teach others because there is use of its teaching without infallibility and no need of its teaching infallibly this point which we are infallibly perswaded of by the Spirit of God And fourthly we deny that there is any points of as much consequence wherein the Church should be assisted with infallibility as this that the Scripture is the word of God because if we be assured of this we need not depend upon any infallibility in the Church for other points since all things necessary are with sufficient plainnesse set down in the Scripture Fifthly as before the Christians were assured hereof before Pope or Council in which he placeth the authority infallible of the Church And again if the universall Church had this priviledge they speak of they are to prove themselves to be first a true part and then also that the part hath the property of the whole and when they have done these we can say as much yea more for our own Church And lastly they are yet to shew their clearer proofs of assistance to the Church than a private Christian hath for the hardest of all points namely that the Scripture is the word of God which indeed if it be compared with the points of Controversie in Divinity is not the hardest point
secondly That you do not say every point is infallibly decided by Scripture because it is not at all decided Well and what to this Sir is not this a necessary point Answ And is not this in another mans expression to be a begger of the question Let them prove it to be necessary but it seems rather by them that it is not necessary For since the Scripture doth not clearly decide it as they suppose therefore the Church should because otherwise it will be wanting in things necessary where the Scripture doth not determine Now if the Church hath determined for the last three of the first six hundred years it hath determined against the Pope for Kings not as we take them to be Heads of the Church as they take the Pope to be Head but as Supreme Governours circa Sacra And so the Church for that space which is most considerable in this business is against the Popes being Head of the Church and the Scripture doth not declare it for him as my Adversaries confess for then it should declare by consequent negatively against Kings as I have said before and therefore upon the whole matter they have nothing for the Popes being Head And then again if the Scripture hath not declared for the Pope it must be declarative sufficiently for the King because no other pretends to be competitor and this is their own argumentation The Church must be infallible no other Church pretends to infallibility but theirs therefore so Government of the Church must be The Scripture speaks of Government they dare not say that the Scripture declares for the Pope therefore it must declare for Kings Or since all agreement is resolved into common Principles let this difference be mediated by these four Propositions 1. Government of the Church is necessary 2. This Government must be in the Pope or the King 3. The Scripture doth not declare for the Pope 4. The Scripture declares all Points necessary therefore it declares for the King The three first Propositions they consent to And the fourth is not yet disproved therefore This Paragraph is a supernumerary N. 42. To make short work we have no need of repetitions But he will urge again S. Matthews Gospel and again tax me for holding it no point of necessity to believe that it was S. Matthews This he saies my learned Brethren in Ratisbon durst not say Plato's rule is good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much who speaks as what yet this is necessary for us to believe that it was written by one inspired indefinitely But it is not equally necessary for me to believe by whom for then I cannot believe the Epistle to the Hebrews because I cannot certainly believe it was written by Saint Paul Again my learned Brethren dared not deny it to be an Article of Faith But first an Article of Faith may be taken largely for whatsoever is to be believed Now though all Articles of Faith in a special sense are to be believed yet all that is to be believed is not in the sense of the question an Article of Faith But then secondly Not to dare to deny it is not to affirm it One is a negative act the other a positive But a pari if I must be bound to their opinion why is not my Adversary bound to his learned Brethren in Ratisbon who did not state infallibilities as my Adversaries do with the necessity of a Council And why do my Adversaries differ from Bellarmin and others of their Brethren who will be scandalized by them because they dispute the Popes being Head of the Church from Scripture for they would be loth to want the Authority of the Scripture for so capital a point which concerns not many millions onely as the other and therefore it seems not absolutely necessary because then it would concern absolutely all but even all for in Bellarmin's opinion as in his Catechism a Christian is defined by union to the Church under the Pope as Head thereof As for his provoking me to believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew upon account of the Church in this number also by the Authority of S. Austin I say onely he might have been so modest as to have left this out until he had answered me in what I have said to that Testimony of Saint Austin at large before N. 43. Here he runs mightily upon a mistake for what I spoke by way of supposition he construes Categorically I said we might suppose more assistance not assurance to the Church in commending Books Canonical than in other cases He takes me to have spoken positively as if God had given infallibility to the Church in this matter though in none other and therefore we are obliged to believe the Church in this absolutely Whereas what I said comes to no more than what is usually said upon such cases dato non concesso And do not the Schoolmen dispute upon hypothetical questions As if I should say If the Pope were infallible in person what need would there be of a Council Or if my Adversaries had a minde to be contented with common Principles of Christianity we should soon have done These Consequences are upon meer suppositions So if we were bound to receive the Canonical Books from the Church we might suppose more assistance as to this than to other Points Doth this affirm that the Church had infallible Assistance herein and that we were to take the Books ultimately upon the Authority of the Church Again if we were to take the Books upon the account of the Church what is this to the Roman Church Is not the Universal Church of all times and places more credible than the Roman The whole bears them not they the whole Nay when he had abused my Supposition in p. 86. he doth acknowledge that I do not make belief of Scripture to depend upon the Authority of the Church So then my Adversary needs not to triumph and say This spoils all your onely shift c. He runs away with the line but he will be hooked as well My Adversary hath granted me that the Scripture may be said to contain all things necessary because it sendeth us to the Church where we may have them And may not I as well say to this that this spoils all may I not return him the fruit of his Discourse mutatis mutandis Will he grant that we have direction to the Church from Scripture Then the onely shift they have to avoid our Position of the Scriptures containing all things necessary is still to say that the Scripture sends us to the Church And will they now suppose this most necessary point of all points which is not clearly set down in Scripture to be admitted with infallible assent upon the onely Authority of the Scripture That we are universally to hear the Scripture in things necessary to salvation we have many pregnant places in Scripture as hath been shewed but that we are to learn this one point
differ in the point of infallible direction Secondly If the Pope be not infallible without a Council then is it not infallible in a Council What will they here say Is he infallible without a Council as the Jesuits say or with a Council onely If not without then not with My reason is this because without the infallibility of the Pope we are not sure of the legality of the Council For though we suppose an assistance of the Spirit of God to Councils yet can we not be assured whether to such a Council in particular this is yet a question because we cannot tell whether it be a right General Council or not not by certainty of Faith surely unless the Pope be infallible in determining this to be a right General Council Thirdly Take the former proposition of his He to whom the Church submitteth in calling the Council and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful Head so as to preside he is right Thus he in effect and terms most what and then we make an assumption to it This was in the four General Councils The Christian Emperour he did call them he did preside in them therefore where is his conclusion Fourthly General Councils are fallible though they do not erre It is possible that they may erre and therefore are they fallible Well but more The Trent Council did erre the Trent Council was a General Council according to them therefore the major is proved already they erred in the Latin Bible they erred in half Communion they erred in point of merit which is not spoken exclusively to more As for the 3. exception he refers me to Bellarmin lib. 2. de concil cap. 19. that although a Council without a Pope cannot define any article of Faith yet in time of Schism it can judge which is true Pope Ans first How could he say that the Church is so direct a way that fools could not erre as before when yet he will suppose such a time of Schism and Bellarmin too quando nescitur quis fit verus Papa when it is not known who is the true Pope Well then during the time of the Schism who shall determin emergent controversies Neither is the Council called and what a tedious debate amongst them may there be to determin who should be next to Christ and if the Council should be as long in calling and as long in being as the Trent Council was forty three years in both as some account how many might be damned in their direct way or else it was not so perillous for some controversies to be undetermined infallibly Yea but if so then why do they so much press a necessity of a living Judge for deciding all controversies According to the vehemency of their plea and the necessities of the Church the Living Judge should not only be alwaies infallible but this infallible Judge should be alwaies living But secondly During the time of the Schism how shall we do for the Calling of a true Council To this he saies for this the Prelats of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves Ans Then the power of calling Councils is not absolutely in the Pope but in actu primo it is radicated in the Prelats though bound from the second act by use of their Church unless in falling Then a supream Ecclesiastick Authority is not by divine institution subjected in the Successour of St. Peter And then what becomes of their Monarchy It seems then that Fabrick is not built upon Gods ground because no practice can hold good against a divine institution And thus the Head of the Church must shake at least the Jesuits will shake their heads at this Doctrine If there be an absolute necessity of a true Pope to call Councils then that which he saies is not good if but of conveniency then we may end the controversie because either all controversies are not necessary to be ended or may possibly be ended without their Head of the Church In the next place he toucheth then upon my exception against infallibility quoad nos of General Councils by reason of doubtfulness of their lawfulness upon the calling of them since in the old time Emperours called them not Popes His answer now is Your Church which never had nor shall have General Councils is to seek in all things belonging to them our Church in every age since Constantine hath been visibly assembled in General Councils c. Urbem quam dicunt Romam Melibe putavi Stultus ego huic similem nostrae Therefore he does well to give us a kind check for our presumption of thinking our Church comparable with theirs First We do not arrogate to our selves a power of calling General Councils yet we may know what belongs to General Councils as well as another particular Church And time was when Anselm had by Urban some comparable respect in the honour of being called as Pope of the other world And secondly As for their Church to have been visibly assembled almost in every age since Constantines time if he understands it as called by the Roman Authority it is denied And therefore what makes this for them since their Church was not visibly assembled as comprehending the whole but pro rata parte as another particular Church In the Nicene Council their Church had no real superiority though it had a titular priority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nilus speaks because that was at first the Imperial City Thirdly How was their Church visibly assembled in the fifth General Council when their Head would not come to the Council upon the debate of the tria Capitula and yet the Council is to be accounted good without the Pope yea against him or else the number of Councils must fail What he saies about Emperours is inconsiderable It is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institutitution by which either Emperours be assured to be still found in the world or that when they have that dignity they be by divine Institution invested with a power to call Councils Ans First We may then prove a negative out of Scripture by his first words and to be evident too which yet were not good if verbum non scriptum were good Secondly We by the same law prove a negative to Popes in the same tenour Thirdly As for Emperours we have more for them in the proportion of Kings for we have a promise for them that they should be nursing Fathers and Queens nursing mothers which surely was accomplished by the first Christian Emperour Yea the term of Kings was then common for Emperours Yea had not the Kings of the Jewish Church Divine Authority in matters of Relion Circa sacra They had not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to defend it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rule it they were not only Protectours of the Church as they are called in the Trent histories but governors and by these were the foure Generall Councils called
namely by the Emperours without any contradiction of Councils Did the Nicene Council question Constantines authority to call Councils whether it was Divine or not How many humble expressions and actions of respect and subjection did come from the Councils and the Fathers which are not indeed suitable to the deportment of that Pope who trod upon the neck of Frederick the Emperour or of him that threw the Duke of Venice under his table with the dogs The competition then betwixt Emperours and Popes in point of Ecclesiastique authority as to the outward part of Religion will come to this No institution of Popes in their sense by Scripture There is under an Evangelicall promise an apopintment of kings to be nursing Fathers and of Queens to be nursing Mothers And in triumphum we might compare them as to the practice of the primitive times there was calling of Generall Councils by Emperours none by Popes till they usurped Therefore Ocham to the King may end it Tu me defende gladio ego te defendam verbo do you defend me with the Sword I will defeind you with the word This to his first answer Secondly as for the Praelates of the Church we can shew Divine institution Actes 20.28 Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock to feed or govern the Church of God And Ephes. 4. Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the worke of the ministry c. Ans First I think that the adversaries living would goe near to starve if they would eate nothing before they proved that feeding there should be understood of governing as it must be unless he spoke in a proper disjunctiveness when he said feed or govern and if so he gives us leave to take it not for him who must get out of it the sense of governing this indeed is laboured by Bellarmin specially and he contests much for it with Luther in his first b. de Rom. Pontif. 15. ch Upon that which is said to St. Peter by Christ feed my sheep His argument is from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sometimes signifies to rule right but it doth not follow that it should therefore signifie so there upon the 21. of St. Iohn we may therefore confront him with a stronger argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is twice used there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to rule therefore we should rather expound the other word by these then by it self And as for his instance out of the second Ps 9. ver where he would have the Hebrew to bear the same sense he is mistaken or worse as I think I have noted before for the Hebrew word there doth not at all signifie to feed but to break it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Ben Israels edition And by others though it be not read with a Vau yet there is a cholem and Montanus renders it conteres thou shalt break So then as to the former Text Acts 20.28 It can no way be proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is to be construed to rule which is only to their purpose Yea Montanus and the Translation of the Syriack and of the Arabick and of the Aethiopick render it not by regere but by pascere Yea 2. Suppose that the word therefore doth signifie to govern yet doth it not therfore follow that the Text should be understood of Bishops of proper name but may be understood of simple Presbyters and without any derogation to Episcopal government because they have a power under the Bishops to rule their particular Churches namely their particular flocks although they have no power over the other pastours as the Bishops have who succeedeb the Apostles in the point of government as St. Ierom speaks in his Epistle to Evagrius 3. Suppose the verbe be to be understood of ruling and suppose that Text to mean as some proper Bishops taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an higer notion yet my Adversaries will be yet disappointed of their end by that Text because we have found Divine institution of Kings and we cannot find in this Text an institution of Bishops to be above them in calling of Councils and ordering the outward part of the Church Yea 4. if that Text doth intend a power in them by the Holy Ghost of calling Councils then for ought I see the power must be primarily subjected in them and not in the Pope and therefore he must not be the chief pastour and Head of the Church which contradicts them if then they intend by the Text a proof of such a Divine institution of Praelates to govern the Church as to call Councils thereby this derogates from the Pope And if they intend not such a power to be given to the Praelates as to call Councils how doth this prove that the Pope is to call Councils from this Text Yea how do they prove that Kings or Emperours are not to call Councils for though Praelats are to govern the Church Yet Kings or Emperours might call Councils these are not opposits but agreeable because the Praelats may govern in sacris the Kings or Emperours circa sacra The speculative decision is to be by the Praelats the outward administration by the Emperours The potestas in actu signato in them in actu exercito in the Emperours And as for the other Text Eph. 4. We need say nothing or only this that the not naming of Lay Magistrates there doth not exclude them else where Doth it If it does not where is their argument If it doth then by the same law of consequence there are no Praelats to have any Divine Authority for the good of the Church because where it is said Kings shall be the nursing Fathers and Queens the nursing Mothers there is no mention of Ecclesiastical Praelats So then let them speak no more of the Fathers of the Church And then 2. This comes not to the point of the question that Lay Magistrates are not here spoken of but only Ecclesiasticall are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministry for to the work of the ministry no man asserts the power of a Lay magistrate but external government is contradistiguished to the work of the ministry which consists in ministerial acts Yea 3. Is that Text to be understood of government of the Church If it be not then it is impertinently produced If it be then by his former argument the Pope is excluded because here is no mention of any appointment of him sub ratione singulritatis and in way of eminencie nay not of any priority and therefore he by this account in all his Pontificalaibus is but an human Creature Therefore upon the account of the Text we will stand our ground and not be carried about with every wind of doctrine Thirdly the Emperour is not by Divine institution Lord of the
of Scripture and Traditions were agreeable to the substance of Scripture or not if so then they hold their virtue by Scripture If not they remain under debate whether they were infallible Neither is Tradition before Scripture to be confounded with traditions after Scripture We can grant more to the former than we can to the latter both in the substance of the matter and in the manner of certification And for the time after the old Testament was written he doth well to say that it remained almost solely and alone to the Jews For what was Iob and why might not others of the learned Gentils travail for divine knowledge as well as Pythagoras and Plato and Orpheus into Egypt as Iustin Martyr saith of them Ninthly he answers to the cause put of a Pope's differing from the Council upon a question he saies nothing shall be deferred and yet no peril For if it were necessary to have a present definition the Holy Ghost would not forget to inspire the parties requisit to do their duties Ans Again What necessity then of every controversie to be ended Secondly How should the people know whether the business required a present definition Surely they may know by this that it did not require a present definition because if so the Holy Ghost would not have forgot to have inspired the parties requisite to do their duties Well then also we can say that we may be as confident that what is not clearly delivered in Scripture doth not require a full definition because if it had the Holy Ghost would not have forgot to inspire the Pen-men of Scripture to do their duties In the tenth answer he is very suspensive how to declare himself in the point of Ecclesiastical Monarchy He saies a Monarch in some Nations could not do all things without a Parliament But he thinks himself on the surer side that he is sufficiently assisted when he defineth with a Council Ans First why do they not speak out and tell us which is which The Church can end all controversies as they say but not that capital controversie about the Church That whereby all things are to be made manifest is that not to be made manifest We must see all things by the light but the light must be private Do they declaim against private Spirits and will not let us publiquely know the power of the Pope comparately to a Council and yet they together must be the subject of publique Authority And why do they tell us that the Scripture cannot prove it self and therefore we must not resolve our Faith in that and yet we must resolve our selves in the Authority of the Church and yet the Church cannot tell us where this Authority Supreme is or will not And it is all one to us for we are in the dark as well by their want of will to shew us light as of power But since it seems we may be saved in the opinion of the Jesuit or in the opinion of the Sorbonist we draw this advantage from it that notwithstanding we know not infallibly which part of the contradiction to hold in points of question we may yet be secured against damnation pendenti lite And what controversie is of such moment for an infallible Judge as who it is Secondly Infallibility may be in one as well as in many since it comes by the assistance of the Holy Ghost then if they think God hath provided absolutely the most plain and expedite way for the direction of his Church this must be placed in the Pope without a Council I hope the Holy Ghost needs no Council which cannot soon and easily be made in all the essentials And therefore he should not have compared the Pope with a Monarch but he should have compared upon this reckoning a Monarch with the Holy Ghost Then though a Monarch could not do all things without a Parliament yet a Pope might do all without a Council because the Pope should be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost as the Apostles were but they do not think so of a Monarch Again they think that the Pope is of divine institution and that a King is meerly a creature of the peoples and therefore he that hath a divine institution must needs have more divine assistance Again when he defineth with a Council he defineth not so much as Head of the Church but as a Bishop in communi with the rest as indeed anciently the custom was and this derogates from the Monarchy of the Church And if he had a priority of order this doth not infer a priority of Jurisdiction over all the Church which Pelagius and Gregory Bishops of Rome abhorred Eleventhly he saies not one Council have been opposite to another Ans This proposition in terms is not true The Council of Constantinople under Leo the Emperour decreed against Images The second Council of Nice decreed for them And what do they think of Pope Vigilius his judgement betwixt the Council of Chalcedon and the fifth Council of Constantinople about the Epistle of Ibas whether it conteined heresie or not And is not the African Council against Appeals opposite to the Trent Council which adds to the Catholique Apostolique Church the Roman as making the Roman to be omnium Ecclesiarum matrem magistram of all Churches the mother and mistress But this hath been touched before He goes on In the Nicene he the Pope erred not as you will grant nor in the three next General Councils as the Church of England grants Ans He saies well He erred not in the first Nicene But this antecedent will not make a conclusion or consequent that therefore he hath not or cannot erre in others It followeth not from a negative surely of one act to a negative of the power they are to prove that he cannot erre which is infallibility But secondly We say also that he could not erre in the other General Councils neither as Head of the Church because he was not Head of the Church He might have erred as a Bishop of Rome but as Head of the Church he could not erre not that we do assert him to have been Head of the Church but because we say he was not Head of the Church and therefore could not erre as such He goes on He subscribed not in the Council of Ariminum how then did he erre in it Yea because he subscribed not that Council is never accounted lawful by any but Arrians Ans He seems now to come to terms more moderate Before he speaks of Councils to be confirmed by the Pope Subscription is less and more general Every confirmation includes eminently a subscription but every subscription makes not a confirmation For they will not deny that other Bishops were wont to subscribe Secondly they may know that the 5. council of Constantinople went for good without his Subscription nay notwithstanding what he published for the tria Capitula which were condemned in the foresaid Council Therefore if they have
Authors And if some of theirs have professed to take testimonies upon his credit because they had not Books by them I may be easily excused for asking the question whether the Bishop of Bitonto did not say so and so in the Council of Trent He that asks a question seems to be wary of asserting And if the opinion of one able Doctor be sufficient to make a point probable as some of them have lately said this point of fact is not altogether unprovided of some hope of probability My Author is Bishop Iewel who speaks it more than once in his Apology Neither have they cause to bragge that their Church have been the men who were still imployed in the upholding the Authority of Councils Surely my Adversaries did pass by Cajetan and Bellarmin and Valentia and did not take notice of what they have said towards fallibility of Councils even lawful that so infallibility and Monarchy might be necessarily devolved from heaven as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Pope's lap All that make perstriction of the Authority of Councils are not hereticks it seems because some that are good Roman Catholicks do speak of their fallibility so that this infallibility should be intailed upon the Bishop universal And so they differ from my Adversaries platforme of infallible direction In this he shewes himself highly displeased for offering to compare the Determinations of Trent with the word of God He thinkes it fine doctrine that determinations of Councils should be examined by such as I and he is Ans it is halfe an argument for us that they are angry at this But first we do not speak of an Authoritative examination which is forensical but a rational inquiry which is for private satisfaction 2. If the Decrees of that Council be indeed infallible they will abide the test if not how can we believe them Do they think 3. That we are more bound to believe the council of Trent then the Beraeans were bound to believe what was said by St. Paul without discussing since specially they are pleased in the Trent Council somtimes to joyn St. Paul as partner with St. Peter in the honour of their Church 3. We may surely finde more cause to examine the Trent Council then some others since it hath not yet obteined in the Christian world the reputation of a lawful General Council therefore though we doe not examin others yet this we may 4. would they not have us preferre the doctrin of Trent before any differing from it yes surely then we must inquire into it and privately judge it otherwise we make a blind choice Fifthly If the consent of the major part which is most immediatly considerable in a Council should morally bind why should we not as well believe the Council of Ariminum since what else he hath pretended against it is not cogent Sixthly If they think that one cannot think well of a lawful General Council unless he believes their infallibility that proposition is easily denied They may be fallible and yet not faulted by me in piety or prudence Infallible conclusions do not follow upon moral principles The one makes them careful the other faithful but though they do not deceive me they may be deceived themselves And if their infallibility did depend upon their piety and prudence how are we infallibly certain of that upon which their infallibility should be grounded Nor does my consideration of a Council betray in me a want of charity or humility as he supposeth they have themselves as Disparates to Theological Faith and are not of the same Conjugation Humility disposeth me to think of my self meanly Charity disposeth me to think better of others because I know my own imperfections and do not know anothers perfections as Aquinas notes But if these were dispositive unto Faith yet not causal If causal of Faith yet of Faith humane not divine unless I did see Gods Word for believing men This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they can prove this we have no more to say Until then I can love my Adversaries and think humbly of my self And yet cannot be perswaded that my Adversaries are infallible And if they were infallible in the dispute how should infallibility be the prerogative of the Council confirmed by the Pope So then as long as I can give reverence to a Council without present Faith I am not posed but they who must beg the question In this he chargeth me with shifting because I said now let us not see the opinions by infallibility but the infallibility by your determinations whereas else where I say you should go a priori and shew that your Church is infallible and therefore her definitions to be admitted This in effect he supposeth to be my shift to evade his pressure of me Ans No such matter Good cause for both distinguish reasons and respects First I hope they think it lawful to urge both waies in a different kind of discourse we demonstrate the effect by the cause we know the cause by the effect Secondly The way a Priori is more distinct and therefore this would presently make an end of the controversie if it could be effected because it satisfies us in the cause Prove the infallibility and then we fall down or rise up to the definitions They are then to be taken ipso facto and they produce Faith ex opere operato as we may speak This the way of nature But when they cannot make this good then the other way and quoad nos is to shew us their infallibility by their determinations and an easie way it is to us to shew them the unlikeliness of infallibility by their determinations For it is sufficient to the negative of infallibility to find one errour in any of their definitions but it is not sufficient to them for the affirmative of infallibility to prove that the Church hath not erred in some particular definitions The latitude of the power is not discharged by some acts Quem saepe transit casus aliquando invent If it hath erred but once we are sure it can erre then infallibility is destroyed if it hath not erred in some yet it doth not follow that it hath not erred in others Yea if it hath erred in none we cannot ex vi formae conclude infallibility unless it be proved that the power of erring is bound in the Church Representative as the Schoolmen say the power of sinning is bound in the Church Triumphant Thirdly We are now upon the Hypothesis incidently and so it is very reasonable for us to go this way with them because a particular Church hath not the priviledges of the universal Church It is generally supposed that the universal Church cannot erre in things necessary but this is not granted to any Church of one denomination Now the Trent Council belongs to a particular Church and therefore as to that our way of proceeding is not irrational And therefore all that he saies upon this argument comes to
Church all he saies is nothing against so much use of it as I made For I do not argue so because there are such Ebraisms therefore this is to be so expounded we say it follows not as to an actual necessity of such an interpretation No but thus it will follow there are such Hebrew formes of prefacing therefore this may be so interpreted Now the possibility of such an exposition is sufficient to my purpose For possibility of the Contrary stops the mouth of infallibility If this or that be infallible it is not possible to be any other way but the sense may be otherwise therefore this is not the infallible sense so we agree with Dr. Taylor whom he quotes because the Doctor may deny the argumentation as quoad esse we intend it sufficiently quoad posse It may be otherwise expounded than they say therefore cannot we hereby infallibly know this infallibility of the Church Suppose the Church were infallible yet if we did not infallibly know so much we cannot make the Church our ground of Faith Nor could there be any consistence of their implicit Faith if they did not know infallibly that whatsoever the Church propounds is infallible And an exception against this interpretation is that it is new unheard of to all Antiquity and unto all men unto this age Ans This exception would have come better from some other since my adversary had no minde to answer me to some Authority of the Antient. It were worth the while to quit the Criticism upon condition they would hold to antiquity But whose saying was that Omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic And yet neither is this a sufficient answer unless the consent of the Fathers could make a conclusion to be of faith So then as the Florentine said of vertue that the shew of it is profitable but the practice not so also may it be said of the Italians that the shew of antiquity is of use to them but the thing not but also it will be too hard for every one of them to prove a negative neither were many of the Fathers Learned in the Hebrew tongue He goes on whether this infallibility be equall to that of the Apostles or not maketh not to our purpose Ans Surely infallibility never took any degrees with their Doctours It is not receptive of magis minus therefore if he asserts not an equall infallibility he asserts none less in infallibility is less then infallibility So then their Church now is not such as to rely upon equally to the Authority of the Apostles therefore it must be subordinate to Apostolical authority which indeed was in effect confessed before in that he granted that the Church was regula regulata And this is as much as the cause is worth He saies I note him in a Parenthesis for a French Catholicke for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a Council Ans No. He or his scribe is much mistaken I asked him whether he had a minde to the opinion of the French Catholick because he in one place spake of the infallible assistance of the Church without any mention of the Pope Now if he did on purpose leave out the Pope in his account of infallibility then he is like to be a French Catholick And although all Romane Catholicks allow infallibility to a Pope defining with a Council cumulative yet all Roman Catholicks do not allow infallibility to the Pope only then when he defines with a Council As some Catholicks do allow full Authority to a Council without a Pope so some Catholicks allow infallible Authority to a Pope without a Council And this is more then I needed to have said to him that sales in this paragraph so little to me Yet he will charge me with charging him with an opinion which brings him within perill of blasphemy His opinion was this God gives as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Council as he gave to him who did deliver his word in Scripture My reason was this for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as infallibly by his Church as in his word He denies the inference I maintain the charge more pressely thus He that inferres no need of Scripture comes within perill of blasphemie He that saies such words as before infers no need of Scripture Therefore To the major in effect he hath said nothing his discourse is bent against the matter of the minor and he would deny it by severall instances which come not up to the case in hand First because he speaks infallibly by the Church of the Law of nature for two thousand yeares And why more blasphemy now To this in the matter of it we have spoken before As applied here we shall answer to it now First he did not then speak infallibly by his Church if the termes by his Church be meant reduplicatively to whatsoever was said by his Church if it be understood thus that whatsoever truth was proposed by God was proposed by the Church it may be more easily granted In the former sense the reason were good if it were true in the latter it may be supposed true yet it is not sufficient to his use who urgeth that nothing is proposed by the Church but that which is true and from God Yea 2. it cannot be absolutly granted in the second sense if we take the Church to have spoken from God in any way of a Council for much truth of what was proposed came to some of them by way of prophecy 3. The termes God speak infallibly by his Church may relate more strictly to the Agent or to the Instrument God spake infallibly whatsoever he spake by them but God did not speak infallibly by them whatsoever they said Or thus the words are true hypothetically if God spake he spake infallibly by them for he cannot speak otherwise but that whatsoever they said was spoken to them infallibly by God is a question Yea 4. Will they think that there is as much reason for infallible speaking by the Church when the Scripture Canon is compleated as when there was none As to Gods speaking by Moses we have spoken to it lastly As to Gods speaking to some Gentiles by the Church that was not ordinary and therefore it fits not our case neither can they prove that the faith of the Gentiles was not wrought in them by the efficiencie of the spirit of God notwithstanding they had the object of their faith from the Church Neither is it now the same case of teaching us infallibly by the Church as at the time when the Apostles did write because the Christian Church was then to be settled upon the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul speaks and now the building can stand upon that foundation therefore were they extraordinary officers and lasted but for a time And yet if they can prove that their Church-doctrine is no other then that which was
service In a word throughout the whole Council nothing is carried by counsel or consultation of Assessors for Assistants I cannot call them nothing by suffrages or votes from them that make it wear the name of a General Council But the supreme present Judge to use the phrase of Mr. Cressy as an Infallible Dictator ordained All. This is constantly the Preface to each Decree in That Council Leo Episcopus servus servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam approbante Concilio c. So again in their last and best beloved General Council Of the Council at Trent All the Fathers do but prepare convenient matter for Decrees whereunto the Pope's Fiat does give the life Their two and twenty years contrivances do end at last in a Humiliter petimus nomine dicti Concilii oecumenici Tridemini ut Sanctitas vestra dignetur confirmare omnia singula c. Edit Bin. Tom. 9. p. 442. meek Petition That his Holiness will vouchsafe to confirm what they had done that is to inform the lifeless matters they had prepared which could not have the nature and force of Articles or Decrees until the Pope had breathed on them the Breath of Life So a little before That b Si in his recipiendis aliqua Difficult as ariatur aut aliqua incideriâ—t quae Declarationem aut Finitionem postulent confidit sancta Synoduâ— Pon ificem curaturum c. viderit expedire c. Si necessarium judicaverit c. Si ei visum fuerit c. Ibid. p. 434. The General Council doth humbly hope That if any Difficulty arise in the receiving of the Canons or if any things Doubtful shall require a Definition or Declaration His Holiness will provide for the Necessities of the Provinces for the Glory of God and the Tranquillity of the Church either by calling a General Council if He shall judge it to be needful or by committing the Business to such as He shall think fit to do it or by what way soever He shall judge more commodious All upon the matter both is and must be as He pleaseth and when the Council is dissolv'd He is himself Tantamount to a General Council Indeed much more For the Council did but propose But He c Apostolicâ Auctoritate declaramus definimus p. 444. declares and define's by Apostolical Authority He d Fidem sine ullâ Dubitatione haberi mandamus atque decernimus p. 443. command's and decree's by somewhat more than Apostolical That Faith without any Doubting be had by all to his Creed and all under the penalty of being cut off from the Body of Christ notwithstanding some part of his Creed is * Vide Concil Trident Edit Bin. excus Genev. A. D. 1612. Tom. 9. Sess 4. p. 354. This That Apocryphal writings and meer Traditions concerning Faith as well as Manners are by all to be receiv'd with as much Reverence and affection as things proceeding from God the Holy Ghost or from the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ Now if a Council as the Lateran does only Read a Decree in Fieri And a Pope as the Tenth Leo by saying Placet does make it one in Facto esse If a Council cannot be currant unless it be called by the Pope and by the Pope praesided in yea if nothing done in it can pass for currant until the Pope hath approved of it or until he hath made it become Authentick by an Act of his Will or by a word of his Mouth Mr. Cressy and Father Johnson who do so earnestly contend for a subcoelestial Infallibility cannot chuse but believe if at all they believe as well as plead it That its real Inhaerence is in the Pope and only said to be in the Council because it does more become the Error and set it off to the People with better Grace The Reason of what I say is very cogent in it self and that it may be so to others I thus endeavour to make it plain They say that Councils are not good or currant unless approved of by the Pope Nor does he give his Approbation until the Council is at an end His Approbation is after and not before it From whence 't is natural to Inferr That he approve's not of the Council because Infallibly good and therefore currant it would not then need his Approbation But the Council is good and currant because He approve's it And why should That be said unless because He is Infallible with them that say it Thus I say it is to Them not Thus in it self For then there would follow this other Absurdity That if The Council hath err'd it is because the Pope hath not approv'd it For let him but approve and It hath not err'd because it hath every thing required to its Infallibility If not let them speak for I argue only ad homines and out of very great charity try to make them asham'd with their own Devices Now to speak a gross Truth The Approbation of a Council when a Council hath done with its Consultations cannot possibly have the virtue to effect that such a Council shall not have err'd For if it hath erred it is erroneous though He approve's it If not it is orthodox though He reject's it The Emperours who call'd the first and truest General Councils did either not care for or not expect his Approbation Yet Those were the Councils either not erring at all or at least the least erring of any other But let us yield Mr. Cressy yet more Advantage and suppose him only to mean what once he saith for he saith so many things that he seem's to have many and those contradictory meanings * Ch. 9. p. 95. Sect. 7. A Church represented by her Pastors out of All Nations which Pastors out of All Nations make a * Concilia Generalia dicuntur ea quibus interesse possunt debent Episcopi totius Orbis nisi legitimè impediantur quibus nemo rectè praesidet nisi Summus Pontifex aut alius ejus nomine Inde enim dicuntur Oecumenica id est Orbis Totius Terrae Concilia Bellarm Controv. Tom. 1. l. 1. de Concil c. 4. p. 1096. General Council And that This only is the Church to which he ascribes Infallibility To which I answer by two Degrees First by observing that he takes for granted what is false For there was never such a Council as to which All Nations did send their Pastors and by consequence The Church was never so Represented and by consequence never Infallible if She can only be Infallible when so Represented to wit by the Pastors of All Nations that have Christian Churches in them For the first four General Councils were not such in that sense And only were called Oecumenical not for Bellarmine's Reason but because they consisted of all the Pastors who were sent from Those Nations which made up all the Roman Empire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Bin. To. 3. p.
50. whose Emperours by a figure were call'd the Masters of the world Beyond the limits of the Empire None of those or after Councils did ever reach None went thither out of Persia India the Inmost Arabia and Aethiopia wherein the Churches were never subject to the Roman Empire Nor yet out of Britain France and Spain when being parted from the Empire They became the Peculiar of other Princes And as the Empire grew scanty so the Councils in proportion did grow less General Whose Greatness is to be measur'd not by the number of the Bishops but by the multitude of the Churches and by the Greatness of the Regions from which they come But since the Bishops of Rome with other Rights of the Roman Empire have invaded This also of calling and praesiding in General Councils they have been only call'd General for being a Confluence of Pastors out of all the Papal Empire And therefore according to Mr Cressy They could not possibly be Infallible because not such as to which All Nations did send their Pastors Next I answer by observing that the learned'st Romanists cannot agree about the Nature or Number of General Councils For first as to the Nature The General Councils of the Romanists are * Quaedam sunt ab Apostolicâ sede app obata atque ab Ecclâ—siâ universâ recepta quaedam omniâ—o reprobata quaedam partim reprobata partim approbata quaedam nec approbata nec reprobata Bellarm. ubi supra p. 1097. thus divided by themselves Some say they are approved by the Sea Apostolical and received by the Catholick Church 2 Some are absolutely reprobated 3 Some are reprobated in part and in part approved 4 Some are neither reprobated nor approved Now since each of these sorts is said by Romanists to be General and General Councils in the general are also said by the same to be Infallible What do they but say in effect and substance The Church represented in General Councils is either absolutely Infallible as in the first species of Geral Councils or altogether fallible as in the second or partly Infallible and partly fallible as in the third or neither fallible nor infallible as in the fourth If General Councils cannot err Why do they reprobate or doubt any of them If they have sufficient reason both to reprobate some and to doubt of others Why do they call a p. 1105 1107 1109. Et inde constat locutum esse Bellarminum ex sententiâ suâ quia sic claudit Partitionem Quod membrum postremum in Conciliis particularibus potissimum locum habet p. 1097. Ergo membra priora in Generalibus ut postremum aliquatenùs etiamsi non potissia ùm General Councils or if General Councils can be doubted of at all and that by Them by what Infallible Token shall they know either that the Councils are truly General and Genuine or at least that being such they are Infallible Of Bellarmine's 18 General Councils which are his first and best species he proves the Approvedness and validity by the Pope's praesiding in or approving of them His General proof is but this They are approved of by the Pope and receiv'd by Papists And what is this but to beg the Question The first 8 Councils he proves to be such by the b Dist 16. Can. sancta octo apud Gratian. p. 60 61. Decree of the Pope The Nine that follow he proves to be approved Because the Pope praesided in them And the last was confirm'd by Plus Quartus So that a Council's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from the Pope and depend's upon his Pleasure But now of those 18. there is a very great difference For the first four only were received and rever'd by Gregory the Great as were the four c Gratian. Decret par 1. Dist 5. Hac spectat Epist Vigilii Papae ad Euâ—ychium apud Concil Edit Bin. To. 8. p. 593. Gospels of Jesus Christ Which Reverence would have been due to the other fourteen had they been of as great Authority as they needs must have been had all been aequally Infallible in their opinion who own them All. And yet the later Councils had been more valid than the former if t is not d Aâ—sque Romani Pontificis Authoritate Synodum aliquibus congregare non licet Ibid. Dist 17. lawful to call a Council without the Authority of the Pope as Marcellus his Decretal affirm's it is not Secondly for the number of their approved General Councils I see not how it can be agreed For besides that the e Concil Florent Sess 5 6. Greeks receive no more than the first seven The f Magdeburg Cent. 8. c. 9. Cent. 9. c. 9. Lutherans but six The Eutychians in Africa no more than three The Nestorians in the East no more than two and the Polonian Trinitarians no more than one which Difference is acknowledged by Bellarmine Himself I say besides This I wonder when Bellarmine will be ever agreed with Pope Paul the fifth The former rejecting the Council at Constance from the number of the Approved which yet the g V. Concil Gen. a Paulo V. Edit Tom. 4. Later does admit of with equal Reverence It was reprobated indeed by a worse than it self to wit the Council at Florence next following after But for decreeing that a Council was above the Pope for which it ought to have been approv'd And abating those things which consist not with the Haughtiness but the just Dignity of the Popes It is as generally received as any other Yet we need no better Argument to prove such a Council above a Pope and the gross fallibility of both together than an Historical Accompt of That one Council as we find it set down by Pope Paul the fifth The Third at Constantinople which is commonly reckoned the sixth General Council was by the 14th at Toledo Can. 7. esteemed the Fifth Implying the former under Vigilius not to have been one of the General Councils which yet with other Councils does pass for such without Question And so much for the number of general Councils Last of all let Mr. Cressy be allow'd to mean at the most Advantage That his General Councils are said to be Infallible not because they cannot but do not err for so he most improperly but yet most kindly help 's out himself Socrat. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 8. Sozomen l. 1. c. 23. Niceph. l. 8. c. 19. chap. 9. p. 98. But does he not think it was an Error in the first Council of Nice as in the third of Constantinople to assent to Paphnutius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and patronizing the marriage of Priests as both Socrates and Sozomen the Roman * Dist 32. Can. Nicen. V. Concil Constantin III. Can. 13. Concil Elib can 36. Decree do alike affirm At least the Council of Eliberis which was contemporary with That Mr. Cressy will say was in an Error for declaring it unlawful to paint
Luke 10.16 We say first this seems not to be rightly applyed to the businesse we are about for this was directed not to the Governors of the Church but to the seventy Disciples or Elders which were sent by Christ to preach the VVord Secondly If you doe extend it to the Representative Church yet doth it not command subjection of judgement alwayes to whatsoever is said but not to despise them as is intimated by what followes and he that despiseth you despiseth me VVe may differ without despising And Thirdly If you will from hence argue that whatsoever was determined in a Council was also determined by Christ then Honorius was by Christ determined an Heretick as you may see in the practicks of the sixth Oecumenical Synod as Nilus in his second Book And if you say that the Church cannot erre in a General Council then resolve Nilus the reason why the Pope doth not hear a General Council for if that General Council did not erre as by your argument it must not then the Pope did erre As for the other places of Holy Scripture which you produce of Christs being with his Church to the end of the world and of his promise of leading his Church into all truth VVe answer together First Though the promise be extendible to the end of the world yet it is not necessary to understand it so as that there shall alwaies be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles which is hard to affirm since we cannot say that there is such necessity for such assistance or such dispositions in the Governours of the Church to receive such assistance Secondly The Promise is made good by a sufficient direction of the Church to their end of happinesse although not without possibility of error For every simple error doth not deprive the Church of Salvation and then it may also recover it self from errour by more perusal of the Scriptures But if it may at all erre it hath not the property of a ground of Faith nor a just capacity of an Infallible communication of all things which are to be believed You go on Now this Church whose Authority is thus warranted did precede the Scriptures Answ VVarranted as a Church but not as so not as Infallible Did precede the Scriptures which for a great part were written upon emergent occasions as you say Answ As for the writing of Scriptures and the emergent occasions you may be further referred to Doctor Field whom you made use of against me VVhatsoever the occasion was the end was to make what was written a sufficient rule of Faith and Manners And as for your objection and inference upon it VVe answer with a distinction the Scripture is considerable two wayes either in respect to the substance of Doctrine or secondarily in respect to the manner of delivery by writing in the first regard the Scripture did precede the Church for the Church was begotten by it which to them was as certain as the written to us And if you could make your Traditions of proper name equally certain you would say somewhat And as for Scripture that which is written doth binde though it doth not properly binde as written You say that the Church was called the Pillar and ground of Truth before it was written and so you say might be said of other passages We answer As that place expressed it doth not appear to us that it was so called since first we find it in termes in Saint Pauls Epistle But if so or other like were used before the answer before will serve By all which places the authority of the Church is commended to us and we are referred to the Church as a Guide in all our Doubts So you say and so we say Where is the Adversary How doth this conclude contradictorily We confesse that the Authority of the Church is commended to us in Scripture but not directly in every place you name nor in any is it so commended to us as to ground our Faith We confesse we are referred to the Ministers for Direction and to the Governours for jurisdiction yet are not the Latter Masters of our Faith unto whom we should be bound in a blind Obedience of Universal assent or practice We take their advice but we are not by them determined in our Faith We may beleeve what they say but not because they say it As it is drawn from Scripture so it draweth us If they make it probable that it is so because they say it yet it hath not the certainty of Faith without the Word of God I should be very tender of incompliance with the judgement of the whole Church but yet I must have for my warrant of Faith the Lord saith And although there be no appeal from a General Council yet have they no infallible judgement You proceed even the Scripture it self is beleeved upon the Tradition and authority of the Church Answer This was touched before in the case of Saint Austin and it is in effect answered as before by Doctor Field Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church but we doe not take them to be Canonical by Tradition from the Church The authority of the Church moves me as to the Negative not to dissent but assent is settled to them as such in the way of Faith because they are such In thy Light we shall see Light as the Psalmist speaks Psalm 36.9 or by thy Light so by Scripture we see Scripture Next follows the Expostulation which may be put into this discourse Either we ground our beleef upon the Church or upon our own fancy and private Interpretation of Scripture c. Answer We deny your disjunction VVe ground our beleef neither upon the authority of the Church as you nor upon fancy neither as some have done who have been better friends to Romans then they have been to us as Doctour Whitaker told Campian upon a like imputation of Anabaptastical fancies VVe differ from you because we allow to private Christians a judgement of discretion or discerning which sure is commended in that precept Prove all things in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians 5.21 We differ from those who magnifie their private interpretations because we say they should be directed by their Ministers and ordered by the Bishops the Pastours of the Church chiefly when they are assembled in a General Council wherein is the highest power of Oyer and Terminer as we may speak of hearing and ending differences in the Church yet we cannot say that we are absolutely bound unto their Canons we having the judgement of private discretion and they not the judgement of Infallibility And if you cannot say that they are absolutely without any doubt but true without doubt we can say that we should not absolutely beleeve them Every possible defect of certainty in the Object excludes Faith the certainty whereof admits no falsity Therefore can we not presently yeeld or assent to whatsoever is by them defined
clearer then this if I say such a thing was done by Cicero the Father of his Countrey and Caesar did such another thing What I say more clear then that in this speech I call Cicero The Father of his Country and not Caesar of whom as yet I had not so much as spoken So the Apostle had not so much as spoken of any Mystery when he spoke these words which lie thus in your own Bible That thou maist know how to behave thy self in the House of God which is the Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of the Truth and without Controversie great is the Mystery of Godlynesse c. Do you not see that he had not so much as spoken of this Mystery when he said the former words which in all kind of Construction per Appositionem clearly relate to the Church O but my Adversary tells me that this title of being The Pillar and Foundation of Truth agreeth in the first place to the Scripture I answer it agreeth equally to any thing that is the True Word of God and therefore it agreeth to the Scripture because God speaketh by it in it but God also speaketh by his Church and in his Church giving as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Councel as he gave to him who did deliver his Word in Scripture for example as he gave to Solomon who in his own person came to play the Idolater It is objected also that in these words rather the Office of the Church is set forth then her Authority To which my Answer is clear that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out then by saying that she is The Pillar and ground of Truth for what Authority can rely more safely then that which relyeth on the Pillar of Truth What Authority can be better founded and grounded then that which is founded and grounded upon the Ground and Foundation of Truth So that nothing can be more clear against Scripture then to say it doth not set out the Authority of the Church in this place No Text being clearer for any thing Hence when the Church had defined that God the Son was Consubstantial to his Father that is of one and the same substance which is no where clearly said in Scripture St. Athanasius calleth this Definition of the Church the Word of God saying that ever hereafter this Definition of the Nicen Councel That Word of God by the Nicen Councel doth remain for ever and ever Ep. ad African Episc Behold here the Definition of the Councel called The Word of God remaining for ever and ever Is not this to acknowledge the Church Infallible in her Definition That place also out of St. Matthew proveth strongly the Churches infallibility Christ there bids his Apostles to teach and Baptize all Nations adding And behold I am with you all dayes even to the consummation of the world My Adversary saith It is not necessary to extend this Promise to Christ his being with the Church to the end of the world which is all one as to say It is not necessary that Christ his Promise should be true For surely he cannot promise more clearly to be with his Church to the end of the world If he should say I will be with you for a Thousand years he should not perform his promise unlesse he were with it a thousand years wherefore promising to be with it even to the consummation of the world to make his promise true he must be with them so long Now the Apostles were not so long as the end of the world baptizing and preaching but their successors are with them therefore Christ must be to the consummation of the world And though these successors of the Apostles be not so worthy of Infallible Assistance as the Apostles were yet Christ giving the gift of infallible assistance not for the worth of the person to whom it is given but for the secure direction of so many millions as were to be of the Church after Christ his time there is as much yea far more reason why he should leave the like secure direction for them because the further we go from Christs time the more we are subject to uncertainties about his Doctrine See Numb 21. It being then proved that Christ will be with his Church untill the consummation of the world and it being manifest that he is not with those who live in damnable Errors we must of necessity say that Christs Church in all ages lived secured from damnable Errors or else there was some Age in which he was not with it and in which he performed not his promise And the same is to be said of that place of St. John 14. And I will aske the Father and he will give you another Paraclete that may abide with you for ever the Spirit of Truth This abiding of the spirit of Truth for ever secures us for ever from all damnable Errors Admirably St. Austin l de utilit cred c. 6 If the Providence of God doth not preside in humane affairs in vain would sollicitude be about Religion but if God be thus present with us truely we are not to despair that there is some Authority appointed by the same God on which Authority we relying as on an assured step may be lifted up to God So he But if this step be fallible It is no assured step Gods providence therefore hath left an Infallible Authority in his Church such an Authority as the first Church had for 2000. years before any Scripture was written And do not tell me that all this is then only true if the Church judgeth conformably to Scripture for even in that sense the Devil himself the Father of Lyes is Infallible as long as he teacheth conformably to Scriptures and the Gates of Hell cannot by any error prevail against the Devil of Hell yea as long as he teacheth conformably to Scripture he is The Pillar and Ground of Truth Hath God in the Texts alledged given no more to the Church then to the Devils And how is this answer to the purpose seeing that for two Thousand years before Scripture no man could know what was conformable to Scripture yea nothing was then conformable to any Scripture there being no Scripture at all And the Church then had not Gods Promise which in all the Texts Authorities and Reasons above alledged is that the Church shall at no time teach any thing that in any damnable matter shall be against Scripture so that when we know this is her Doctrine we are sure that this is conformable to the Scriptures rightly understood And thus clearly is fulfilled those notable words in the Prophet Daniel cap. 2. v. 44. In the dayes of those Kingdomes the God of Heaven will raise up a Kingdome which shall not be dissipated and his Kingdome shall not be delivered to another people and it shall break in pieces and consume all these Idolatrous Kingdomes and it shall stand for
Infallible Churches Authority to be the ground of Faith I proved the Authority of the Roman Church to be so See this fully answered Numb 27.28 Secondly You say you might still have left me to answer your first Paper with the second Paper I reply that this is onely to stand to what you have said as I also do Let the Reader judge with indifferency Thirdly You say I conclude not contradictorily I reply that I alwayes conclude the Churches Authority to be a sufficient ground of Faith you say it is an insufficient ground Reader judge whether these two be not Contradictions sufficient and insufficient Now to your Eight Answers in Order In your first Answer you spent seven pages to prove the Scripture to be a sufficient ground of Faith This This it is not to conclude contradictorily You should conclude that the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of Faith which still may be and is true though it also be most true that the Scripture is a most sufficient ground of Faith when it is once known by an infallible Authority to be Gods Word and also when we evidently know that such and such is the undoubted sense of the Scripture But I have proved at large that we cannot know upon infallible Authority which books be or be not Gods Word but by the Authority of an infallible Church See Numb 11 12. And consequently if the Churches Authority be not a sufficient ground for Faith then we can have no Faith to believe which books be Gods Word which not See Numb 26. The Churches authority is hence proved to be a sufficient ground for Faith and to be our first ground for we must first upon the authority of the Church believe such and such Books to be Gods Word and then assured by this our belief that they be Gods Word we may ground our Faith upon the authority of that Word of God which in this sense I hold to be a most sufficient ground for all Faith extended to all points clearly contained in Scripture This and onely this all your Authorities prove Take for an Example your first Authority of St. Irenaeus out of which you neither do nor can infer any more then that the Scripture once believed to be Gods Word is to us a sufficient ground of Faith because in it self it is The Pillar and Foundation of Truth but by the Authority of Saint Paul which is a stronger Authority then that of Saint Irenaeus The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth Therefore her Authority is a sufficient ground of Faith even according to this your strong Argument This I shewed Numb 22. Yea Saint Irenaeus expresly teacheth that though there were no Scripture at all yet we should all be bound to believe what we now believe as I have shewed Numb the. 19. And yet then we should have no other Authority then that of the Church Again the Scriptures can then onely ground Faith when they contain the Matter about which we are bound to have Faith but very often they do not contain this Matter as I have shewed Numb 9.10.11 12. and chiefly Numb 15. and 16. These points not being contained in Scripture how can I believe them for the Scripture Lastly the Authority of Scripture onely can ground Faith in those points which are known undoubtedly to be delivered in such clear Texts as a man cannot prudently doubt of the sence but a number of things are to be believed which be not thus set down in Scripture as hath been shewed in the places cited See also Numb 14. In other Cases I never deny the Scripture to be the ground of Faith but I say that as God spoke by the pens of those who writt Scripture so he speaketh by the Tongue of his Church in a General Council and therefore these his words are also to be believed as I fully shewed Numb 21.22 23 24 25 26. The Scripture in the Cases I here specified is a sufficient ground of Faith as your authorities well prove and so is the authority of the Church as I have fully proved in the places cited In your second Answer all you say is that the Church cannot ground our Faith but I have fully shewed the contrary in the places cited In your third Answer you come to answer the Testimonies I brought out of Holy Fathers and Scriptures and this taketh you up unto your 27. Page My Reply is that in this Paper I have made good Authorities and Testimonies sufficiently abundant to convince what I undertook and I have fully refuted the chief things you said against the chief places as may appear fully out of the Numb 17 19 22 23 24 25 26. where at large I have shewed your lesse sincere proceeding about the prime authority of S. Austin whose authority in the precedent Number I shewed not to be single In the fourth Answer you say you take not Canonical Books to be Canonical for the authority of the Church I Reply that if you do not take them to be so on this authority yet the holy Fathers did as I have shewed Numb 12.25 26. And if you believe them to be Canonical onely upon the Light given in them to you to see this verity your ground is far more fallible then the authority of a General Council as I have demonstrated Numb 13. In the fifth Answer you endevour to shew that you ground not your Faith on your own private judgement of discretion but I have shewed fully the contrary Nu. 3 4 7. In the sixt Answer you rejoyce to see me confesse the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and Manners as if I had at any time denyed this Neither doth this Confession destroy my Position that the Church is the Ground of our Belief Can I not ground my Faith upon what St. Peter saith because I can ground it upon that which Saint Paul saith Why is the Scripture the Rule of Faith Because it delivereth to me Gods Written Word But the Church delivereth to me Gods Word written and unwritten I may therefore also rule my self by that The most right Rule of Scripture is often so crookedly applyed that he is blind who seeth not that we need to have better security of Interpretation then our own private discretion of Judgement can afford as I have fully proved Num. 4.14 Of the Infallibility of the Church in Interpreting I have fully proved our Doctrine Numb 21 22 23 24 25 26. In the seventh Answer you taxe me with being loath to own the Roman Church Why I did not speak of the Roman Church I told you here in the beginning it was because you would conclude as there you do The Catholique Church is not the Ground of Faith therefore the Roman is not I have fully shewed the contrary and proved the Catholique Church to be the ground of our Faith and out of superabundance I have shewed this Church to be the Roman Church See Numb 27 28. In the eighth Answer
credibility to arise The Scripture doth with competent clearnesse furnish us against damnative error and the Church doth no more as you give us to understand at the end of this your Treatise and why then should we leave the Scripture which is acknowledged Infallible to go to the Church and what need then of an Infallible Judge what for Peace and Unity Then fourthly we say that the Decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto Peace Though their judgement cannot ingage undisputed assent yet their power they have from Christ doth require reverence and undisturbance in the difference It requires subscription if we see no cause of dissenting and if we do subjection to the censure All the authoritie of the world can go no further with us unlesse we might be hypocrites in differing by an outward act from our inward act of belief And yet wherein have we divided out accords from the former General Councils And therefore why are we charged with this Indictment as if we were opposite to the authoritie of the truly Catholique Church yet if we did differ without Opposition we keep the peace of the Church without question And that we must differ until we see God speaking believe his reason that said Omnis creata veritas c. All created veritie is defectible unlesse as it is rectified by the increased veritie Wherefore the assent neither to the Testimonie of Men or Angels doth infallibly lead into Truth save onely so far as they see the Testimonie of God speaking in them So then the assent of Faith is onely under obedience to him speaking And if you say that God doth speak in General Councils as he doth speak in his Word written prove it Yea how then will you avoyd blasphemie For doth God speak Contradictions For so one Council hath contradicted another And to use your own argument we are bound to submit our judgement onely to those who can judge of the inward act for so you distinguish betwixt temporal Judges and others but God only can judge of our internal acts therefore we must submit our assents onely to him and therefore to others no further then they speak according to him So that we cannot absolutely adhere to whatsoever is said in Councils which have erred Jewish and Christian too Now then you may think I spoke reason in my respects to General Councils without your unlimited subjection of Faith And therefore your admiration in the beginning of the 5 th page of this Paper which is grounded upon your interpretation of thaâ— of Esay is as unnecessarie And that absurditie which you would infer upon my Opinion that the wisest men in the world are most likely to erre this way by which he may in his interiour judgement go quite contrarie to all Christendome hath little in it out noise For first you suppose hereupon an infallible Judge upon earth which is the Question Secondly the wisest man is not most likely to erre if it be lawful to dissent from Universal councils because as such he is most apt to discern what is defined according to Truth what not Thirdly what think you of Saint Athanasius who differed in his judgement and profession too from most of Christendome then about the Divinitie of the Sonne Fourthly the Rule of Scripture is equally infallible and those who are wise if they prepare themselves for the search of Truth they are likely not to erre for if they go by the Rule they cannot erre because it is infallible But those who goe by the Church may erre because for ought is yet proved it is not infallible and those who are fools may by Scripture be made wise unto salvation And to this purpose the Scripture which is very sublime and heavenly in the matter yet is simple and plain and low in the manner of deliverie that those who are of meaner capacitie might hereby he sufficiently directed to life and salvation Therefore doe not tell me but prove to me that the Church is infallible and that you are the onely Church or else you do nothing but with fooles whom you find or make to goe your way In your next lines you do discharge me of singularitie in my Opinion For it appears by you that all but Roman Catholiques are of the same perswasion All but Roman Catholiques you say As if none were Catholiques but either of your Nation or of your Religion The first is a contradiction and the second is a falsitie for there were many Catholiques which were not of your Religion in those Points wherein we differ By the Fathers of the Church those were accounted Catholiques which withstood the plea of Faustinus the Popes Legate in the Carthaginian Council when he falsified the Nicene Canon of subjection to the Roman Bishop whereof no such copie could be found They were Catholiques who determined against Appeals to Rome who determined equal priviledges of other Churches to the Bishop of Rome They were Catholiques who held not Transubstantiation nor Purgatory nor your use of Images nor your Sacrament under one kind nor your other Sacraments as of proper Name nor Indulgencies And they were Catholiques who held that which you doe not hold as the Millenarie Opinion and Infant Communion And therefore to follow you the desperate consequence which you charge us with if we do not come over to your way flowes not from your premises unlesse you can make out an infallible assistance of your See and that this is by God appointed for our necessarie passage to salvation and the way promised in the Prophet Esay Nay if the people should be left for their guidance to the unanimous consent of the whole Church in points of Faith here would be a desperate consequence for I hope they were more like to finde the Articles of Faith in the leaves of Scripture which as to these is plain then in the perusal and collection of all the judgements of all the Fathers of all ages every where according to the rule of Lyrinensis or if we take the depositions of the Fathers in those properties which he describeth such whereby we are to be ruled that they must be holy Men wise Men they must hold the Catholick Faith and Communion they must persist in their Doctrine they must persist in it unto Death in the same sense as in the 39. Chapter against Heresies If you do not take the consent of the Church according to these circumstances you differ from him If you do how shall the poor people through all those labyrinths see the right way of wholsome Doctrine when who knows how many of them did not write at all How many of those who wrote were not such How many works of those who were such are to us perished How many bastard pieces are fathered on them How many of their writings corrupted How many or how few have touched upon our differences having not occasion by adversaries How many have differed from one another How
which by the Trent Councel was Christened Authentique before it was born You make that to be the Scripture by which you must decide Controversies then you decide Controversies by Scripture And hath that no faults in it Is it every word Infallibly done If Infallibly done at first why did Clement the eighth vary from Sixtus quintus and why doth Isidor Clarius vary from him in thousands of places And do you any where find in Scripture that this Interpretation is made Canonical And are there none that find great fault with this Latin one If you will look into your Bellarmine in his third Book De verbo Dei 10. Chapter you may finde the contrary and although it goes under the account of an antient Edition and Hieronis yet in the Chapter before you may see he findes adversary objections and you may find by his confession that all is not his VVhat need then Sixtus Quintus have made it up And is not your Rhemish Testament very faultie Will you undertake to make it all good against Fulk And if you say that you may be certain of your Latin by the Church which you will prove to be infallible until you do prove it you doe again commit the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This should have been made irrefragably sure at first by Achillean invincible arguments and then we should have fallen down before you But again you tell us you will do it and presently fly at us for our Opinion Is there not one of yours who is prettily in his Opposition against Bishop Andrewes about the Popes temporal power compared to the pulex Qui cessim fugit fugit recessìm Et subsultibus hinc hinc citatis Vibrat cruscula And is there no more do so In some lines following of your Treatise we have nothing but petitions or repetitions and we answer no more till you prove more then this no man ever erred by following Scripture sincerely which you grant to be the infallible Word of God If they erred they erred from Scripture not by it But fools may be made wise by Scripture and wise men may erre by your Church until you make it infallible Nullibi pronior fidei lapsus quam ubi rei falsae gravis autor extitit as he said If they may teach that which is false wise men may also be deceived if they be not infallible they may teach that which is false But in the eighth line of the ninth page you oppose to me Saint Austins authoritie and of all the greatest Doctors which ever the Church had that they professed themselves unable to understand the Scriptures and that after many years study and how then c. We easily answer Saint Austin doth not say that the Scripture is absolutely and universally in all places so difficult that we may not get out from thence that which will direct us to Heaven for then he should contradict himself Doth he not say in his 4 th chapter of the 2. Book Dê Doct. Christ That there are some things indeed difficult but the obscurity is profitable to tame our pride by labour and to bring back our understanding from loathing cui facile investigata plerumque vilescum as he saith And fully again in in his 10 th Tome De verbis Apostoli Serm. the 13 th Verbi Dei altitudo c. The sublimitie of the Word of God doth exercise our study doth not deny to be understood If all were shut up there would be nothing whereby that which is obscure would be revealed Again if all were covered there would not be from whence the soul should receive nourishment and might have strength to knock at that which is shut Therefore your fallacie is à dicto secundum quid if from hence you would conclude all to be difficult yea so you would contradict Saint Peter who saith of Saint Pauls Epistles that somethings of them are hard to be understood not all Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam as the Rule is Yea you would contradict your self who say more then once that those things which are plain in Scripture you believe by the authority of Scripture But if from the asserting of some things difficult you would onely conclude that this cannot be the judge in Controversies as you seem to intend in your conclusion we say plainly this difficulty in some things of Scripture doth not inferre the necessity of an infallible Judge on earth your premisses do not conclude this and we allow unto you the use of Judges on earth although they be not infallible As Judges in civil Causes may and do sometimes erre yet is there use of them so also is there of Ecclesiastical Judges though not incapable of errour and again there is no peril of damnation on either side soberly held in points of Question and therefore the Scripture yet may be the way so direct that fools cannot erre in matters of necessary faith and practice And fourthly a General Council is the highest you can goe in humane Authoritie and yet this doth not binde unto Faith because it is not free from errour To which purpose believe Saint Austin if you will stand to his judgement in his third book against Maximinus Bish of the Arrians the fourteenth chapter Sed nunc nac ego Nicenum c. But now neither ought I produce the Nicene Council nor you that of Ariminum as boasting thereof neither am I held under the authority of this nor you of the other Let matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason be debated by Authorities of Scriptures not proper witnesses to any but common to both So he Where you see he prefers the authorities of Scripture before Councils which are proved not infallible even here because one was for the Arrians Here is Council against Council as there hath been Pope against Pope In this case what will you do which must you submit to Is one infallible contrary to another infallible If you must submit to both you submit to errour if to one why not to the other if that be infallible And this also will include uncertainty of all humane definitions about the Canon of Scripture which hath been spoken to before We come now to your second Reason in your eighth Number That you say comes into this Enthymene Many Controversies there are and may be yet very many more most neerly concerning the necessary means to salvation which can never be ended and undoubtedly decided by judgement and sentence of the Scriptures therefore the Scripture is not the Judge We answer to the Antecedent in those termes I deny it in both the branches if you mean by those things nearly concerning the necessary means to salvation such things as are indeed necessary to salvation otherwise you go upon a false supposition that there is a necessitie of a Judge on earth undoubtedly to decide that which is not necessarie Therefore chuse you which you will hold to if you mean those
as out of the third Book chap. 19. is not there according to that of Robert Steven in Greek which came out Lutetiae Parisiorum cum Privilegio Regis In the ninth Chapter indeed of the same Book there is somewhat of Josephus that he gives the number of the Books of the Old Testament and which are uncontradicted by the Ebrews in the same words by them teaching as out of antient Tradition But here we have but Josephus his opinion Secondly This is but for the Old Testament not the whole Scripture Thirdly This is but as out of Tradition Fourthly You will not find in the next chapter all your Apocryphal books The Number he makes to be 22. in which Number Cyril of Jerusalem in his fourth Cat. excludes all but Baruch Fifthly After so much time which is past he saies no man durst add or take away or change any of them And that which he speaks at the end of the chapter that he followed Tradition and therefore did not erre if you mean that it is not pertinent for he doth not there speak of Scripture Your flourish then as hereupon must yet vanish And besides all signes are not able to make a certainty the Tradition of the Church is not an evident signe it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Church received some things and held them too which you will not hold as Infant Communion and the Millenary Opinion therefore can we not be assured in way of Faith wherein there is no falsity by the Church That of Saint Austin will be included in the disquisition of the main Testimony of that Epistle And to your question which of the Fathers when they were asked did answer that they did believe the Canonical Books upon our ground that which was said in the former paper of Saint Origen and Saint Athanasius remains good untill it be answered In your thirteenth Number you object Luthers not seeing the Apocalyps and the Epistle of Saint James to be Canonical by their own light VVe answer First A negative argument from one is easily denyed to be cogent when we cannot yeild it to the Church because he did not see them therefore they could not be seen is no argument Secondly You see then hereby that we do not follow him in all things blindely as you do the Church in whatsoever it proposeth Secondly The Apocalyps was doubted of by others also as you know by Ecclesiastical history although now it is universally received So also might Luther afterwards come to the sight of them to be Canonical And Thirdly also other books have been scrupled notwithstanding the authority of the Church and therefore how is that a ground of their Faith Saint Austin you make use of afterwards for the Canonicalnesse of the Macchabees upon the credit of the Council of Carthage and also the book of Wisdome To this we need say no more then hath been said save onely we may hence observe how uncertain we are of a ground of Faith in the authority of the Fathers when one sayes that which is contrary to the other Answer you Saint Jerome upon the point as before And Saint Jerome I hope yet was a Catholick and was not damned because he did not embrace the opinion of the Church in this If the Church be Infallible to Saint Austin why not to Saint Jerome or one may see that which is Infallible and the other not then is your former objection thereby taken away And you will hold Saint Austin no otherwise to have held the Macchabees to be Canonical then he held the book of Wisedome to be Canonical and you will hold that the Council of Carthage held the book of Maccabees to be Canonical as Saint Austin held the book of Wisedome to be Canonical This I suppose you will agree to without dispute Well then be pleased to take notice of what abatements and deductings may be found in Saint Austin upon the place in regard of Equalitie of Respect which you think he gave to this book of Wisedome and to Canonical Scripture First it seems there was exception taken at the authority of that book even in their Opinion of St. Austins judgement thereupon and therefore he saith Quasi excepta c. As if if this attestation were excepted the thing it self were not clear which we will have from hence to be taught namely this he was taken away that wickednesse might not alter his understanding which Saint Cyprian he saith had taken out of the book of Wisedome And when he had discoursed the Truth of the sentence he inferrs which things being so this sentence of the Book of Wisedome ought not to be rejected which hath merited to be read of those who are of the degree of Readers of the Church by so long antiquitie and then follow your words Onely you may excuse me if secondly I be a little critical for it is not said there that it was received of all but it was heard of all with veneration of Divine Authoritie If there be no difference why doe ye not use the word if you do falsifie then it seems there is some difference and outwardly they might give respect to it as Canonical although whether in their apprehensions they did esteem it as such may be a question But thirdly you see it here to be somewhat distinguished from Books Canonical and to depend upon prescription as if it were not so from the beginning Fourthly those who were Tractatours next to the time of the Apostles did prefer this book before themselves which using this as a witnesse did believe that they brought no other then a Divine Testimony So the Father whereby is intimated that this was as deutero Canonical as it is expressed and not of proper name Canonical and also herein is signified that it was not so used in the Apostles times And again this Book had merited to be read by so great a numerositie of years and afterwards he calls this sentence anciently Christian So upon the whole matter you see some difference made betwixt this book and others by themselves Canonical De Predestinatione Sancto rum cap. 14. Peruse then the whole chapter and you will see how little advantage you can make thereof Indeed there is in the chapter a word which I know not whether I have rendred according to your mind it is mereri and yet I think I have interpreted it discreetly by meriting that so it might be capable of the same Latitude but I put you to your choice How the Fathers use the word you know for obtaining But if you will have it here to be construed by plain deserving then we have an Argument against you For if the book deserved to be read in the Church then was it not accounted as Divine and Canonical because it was received by the Church but it was received by the Church because it did deserve it by the matter If you will not understand it here of plain deserving then
arising from time to time and who can hear Me and You and be heard by Me and You that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we doubt we can propose our doubt and she will tell us clearly her meaning whereas the Bible c. cannot do so This hath in it somewhat new your discourse in brief may be under this forme That which can hear you and me and be heard by you and me and resolve doubts of its meaning is the Judge the Church can do thus the Scripture not therefore the Church is the Judge and not the Scripture We easily answer If you understand the proposition of a formall Judge so we grant it and do not say the Scripture is the Judge but if you mean it so that nothing can be in any Kind a Judge but that which doth so we deny it and your assumption too for the Law is in its kind the Judge and so may the Scripture be as I have shewed before in this paper And unless the Ecclesiastick Judges whereof we do not reject a lawfull and good use doe rightly declare Scripture in the application of it to particular Causes wherein the authority of the Church as some of your men will sometimes say doth consist I cannot possibly hold my self bound in Conscience to yield my judgement therunto So then secondly unlesse you put into the premisses that that which heareth you and me and is heard by you and me is the infallible Judge and then that the Church doth so your discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for so we grant all as to the Church for this may stand with our cause but if you do put in infallibility we deny both the one and the other Preposition Thirdly by this Argument you exclude Tradition from being the Judge for doth that hear you and me Is that heard by you and me but you say the Church doth determine hereby then may it determine by Scripture more securely and more universally Fourthly is not the Heretique Saint Paul speaks of in his third chapter to Titus the 10.11 verses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himself or of himself how that not by principles of natural Knowledge for Theologie is supernatural and therefore needed a Revelation of it from God you know not by a Revelation immediate Extra Scripturam for then how should he be condemned of himself Not by any definition of the Church which was not then sufficiently formed thereunto no nor yet by Titus because then as before he had not been condemned by himself then he was condemned by himself because he had in him the Principles of the Word of God which he gainsaid by his contrary Error So that it remains he was condemned by the Law of God And therefore that can judge you and me not externally and by voice but internally by vertue of Conscience which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemning of Errors in us so that this Scripture it is or the Word of God which passeth Sentence in the interiour judgement as you speak and this absolves some who in the outward Courts are condemned and condemneth some who in the outward Court are not condemned And therefore it is not only lawful but necessary for us sometimes to dissent in our judgement because they may erre in their dijudication And as much your own reason suggests in your 21. Number wherein you acknowledge it to be necessary that there should be infallibilitie in the Judge of faith And then you would state or estate this infallibility of the Church of Christ thus that a Pope defining with a Lawful Generall Councill cannot erre For it is no necessary article of faith to believe that the Pope or Head of the Church cannot Erre when he defineth without a Generall Councill So you Alas Sir what Cautions do you stand in need of in this grand and capital and Comprehensive Controversie which affords me Liberty to think that that is not the ground of Catholique Faith which is intricated with so many windings and guarded with such accurateness of Cautions that render it very suspicious and therefore not to be plain and a direct way so that fools cannot erre for who can be certain by a Divine Faith of the Lawfullness and regularitie of your Pope in his Creation and when there was Pope against Pope who of the people could distinguish the right And this is now possible because then in facto And who then could decide the question for the infallible judge you say is your Pope with a Council Which of them could then determine it and in his own cause Or could your Council determine it without a Pope but I hope your infallible determination could not be without the Head of the Church And who according to your Doctrine should call the Council for you say that power is vested in the Pope Well suppose no doubt of the legalitie of the Pope how shall we by a Divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulness and Generality of a Councill for you know Ecclesiastical History is full of instances of Councils which were called by the Emperours and not by Popes to whom you say it doth of due belong to call Councils else they are not lawful And how shall we know whether every one of the Council hath a free Election to it and a free decisive vote in it How much of faction may be looked for in a Councill when there is so much in the Election of a Pope such exclusions such bandyings What Council was ever called by a Pope wherein Religion was not made to serve his interest Is not he who hath power of preferring like to domineer in such Consultations And how shall ignorant souls be divinely perswaded that the Council i◠General If it be easie to discern it then had your Tren◠Council great infelicity to be so contradicted by the French Catholiques And how many Bishops in the Trent Council furnished with a Title to overpower them with Votes on the Popes behalf So that he answered well who said about the question which is superiour a Pope or a Council a Pope was like to have the more voyces because he could confer Bishopricks a Council not What clue can a collier have infallibly to guide him through all those Labyrinths Secondly If the infallible Judge of Faith be the Pope with a lawful General Council how was the Church provided for when for so many years there was neither Pope in your sense nor any Council Thirdly If the Pope and the Council do differ about a Question what shall be done in that case yet if the Question be which is superiour to the other the Pope or the Council what shall be joyntly agreed and is not this a main question between the Sorbonists and others Fourthly If the Pope with a lawful General Council be the infallible Judge then how will this be reconciled
be intended to that purpose since also the words do in short fully represent the office of the Church the intention of the passage must be gathered by the scope according to the rule of the Schoolman Intelligentia dicti colligitur ex scopo loquendi Now the drift of Saint Paul was to instruct him how he should carry himself in the Church Was it reasonable then he should have account of the Church in the priviledges of it or in the duty thereof which is to hold forth and uphold truth For if the Infallibility of the Church were here affirmed then needed he not to have such instructions to take care how he behaved himself in the Church Since Infallible assistance is immediate and that which is immediate includes no time for the inspiration nor means of instruction therefore had your Roman Church been real in the asserting of Infallibility it had not needed eighteen years for the sitting of the Trent Council with Intermissions nor more for the consultation whether there should be any As for that which comes next of Athanasius it was in part answered before the Argument is this the Consubstantiality of the Son is by Athanasius after the determination of the Nicene Council called that Word of God by the Nicene Council which remaineth for ever and ever And this is no where clearly said in Scripture therefore somewhat which is not clearly said in Scripture may by a Council be determined to be the Word of God To this we answer we may grant you all of the Syllogism and yet nothing accrews to you if the words by the Nicene Council be understood ministerially to Scripture which they were bound to declare the sense of as to that point and so it did not binde with relation to their Authority but by Authority of Scripture which they declared the mind of in that case And therefore though so we grant the Argument yet do we deny your Consequence which you would make of it in your sense that the Church is infallible in the definitions of it since that which was defined was indeed Infallible and yet was not Infallibly defined for though the Council did not erre in that definition yet it might have erred and if it did not erre in that yet it might erre in other definitions and therefore can we not without suspense intuitively receive what they propose as the Word of God which is by you yet to be proved For secondly That which they have the Principles and Grounds of Scripture for it is more easie for them rightly to define in the Application of those principles unto particular cases as they had for that question about the Consubstantiality of the Son as Saint John the 10.30 I and my Father are one not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one Person but one in Nature but as for those questions whereof the solution is not so principled in Scripture as being not so necessary to be held on either part we cannot expect so likely a determination and yet if probable we cannot from thence urge it as an object of Faith That which is in Scripture according to equivalence of sense as that point is we may better credit upon account of Scripture then that which the ignorance of doth not damn since the Scripture gives us no moments of knowledge how to order our assent affirmatively or negatively in that But thirdly Saint Athanasius did not ground his Faith in the affirmative of that question upon the authority of the Nicene Council because he held it before the Council had determined it and therefore the cause of his Faith herein was not the authority of the Council And if that Council of Nice was to be believed for it selfe without respect to the matter as depending upon Scripture why not the Council of Ariminum to the contrary and therefore Saint S. Austin would refer it to Scripture betwixt him Maximinus a Bishop of the Arrians since the Councils was contrary And if any exception could have been made against the Council of Ariminum as towards the denial of such authority of it as is due to other Councils had it not been easie for the Father to have held the Doctrine upon the Authority of the Council of Nice though the other had been rejected In your 23. Number you do not fairly render my Answer I did not say that Christ would not be at all with his Church to the end of the world but it is not necessarily there meant that he would be with them unto the end of the world as he was with the Apostles by Infallible assistance so he did not promise he would be with the Successours of the Apostles And therefore if this be a simple mistake it is a fallacy a dicto secundum quid if you intended a slander it is worse Infallible assistance is not there promised and therefore the promise may be made good without it Neither was there such need of Infallible assistance whatsoever you say because the rule of Faith and Manners was to be determined in the Scripture which is the Infallible Word of God So that although they who followed the Apostles in the governance of the Church had been so disposed for Infallible assistance as the Apostles yet had there not been that use of the assistance Infallible but having not that disposition thereunto they wanted a condition and qualification for such assistance And God did not give an Infallible assistance to the Apostles because they were disposed for that gift of Infallibility but rather gave them that disposition that so they might be fitted for that Infallibility And so if he had intended such a measure of the Spirit to the Successors of the Apostles as to them he could have made them as capable thereof As for your Reason which you mention of leaving as secure direction for them who followed because the further we go from Christs time the more we are subject to uncertainty about his Doctrine therefore there is as much yea far more reason of this secure direction I answer You do not well consider what you say For if we be more subject to uncertainties the further we goe from Christ his time then cannot you urge the credit of those Traditions now equally to the certainty of them then supposing that there were any of Faith not written Secondly this Reason would be none if men would be guided by Scripture which hath now the same certainty as ever This is a Rule which will with equal infallibility hold at all times and unto which we are all equally obliged Again you would argue that the Church is secure from damnable errour because Christ promised to be with it to the end of the world and he is not with those who live in damnable errour But what is this to me you may conclude thus and yet not against me if you speak of damnable errour specificatively for if you mean it reduplicatively that all errour is damnable
by those places of Scripture which places as they could not before the meeting of the Councils so they cannot after the meeting of the Council fully define determine and decide these controversies Now surely it is clear by these Acts of the first four Councils which Councils your English Church holds for lawful that the Fathers of these Councils never so much as doubted but that they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define and finally to determine those controversies still arising And they had grievously wronged the world by Excommunicating all such as should gain-say what they had defined and determined if Errour and Falsity and Contradiction to Scripture could have been found in their Definitions and Determinations What you touch concerning the Bereans I answer fully chap. 3. Numb 14. 6. Whereas you adde fourthly That the decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto peace though their judgement cannot claim an undisputed assent yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference you teach by words what the deeds of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid Secondly seeing that a general Council as you in your first paper confess is the highest Court on Earth to hear and determine Controversies if her determinations may be erronious and these erronious determinations be to be accepted peaceably reverently and without disturbance in what a pittiful case should Gods whole Church be which having no higher Court from which relief might be hoped is bound to conform and subscribe to erroneous definitions and all preachers are silenced and obliged not to open their mouth against these errours Did it beseem the wisedome of Christ to appoint such a Government in his Church which should leave open so wide a gap to errors which being by command from the highest authoritie on earth preached by so many and not so much as contradicted by one must needs increase to a wonderful height Would any wise Law-makers proceed thus if they could help it as well as Christ could by continuing in his Church that infallibility which you will confesse it had those two thousand years before Scripture was written and which this Church of Christ had before all the whole Canon of the New Testament was finished which was for the first fourty years of the Church 7. Vain is your fear that we should become Hypocrites in differing by one outward Act from our inward act of belief for any wise man may inwardly perswade himself although I by my force of wit cannot see how such a point defined by a whole general Council should be true yet if I have wit I cannot but perswade my self even according to humane wisedome that so grave a judgement of a whole Council is far more likely to see the truth then my private judgement and therefore rather to be interiorly imbraced Again I may discourse thus All the places alleadgeable against the Definitions of Councils or of Scriptures be places clear or not clear if not clear then clearly I am imprudent and impudent to oppose in a point not clear my private judgement of discretion against the publick judgement of all Christendome far more likely in a point not clear to hit upon the truth then I am Now if these places alledgable against the Definitions of Councils be clear and evident it is an evident and clear folly in me to think that so wise an Assembly should have so universal a blindnesse as that none of them should be able to discover that which is clear and evident even in my short sight See chap. 4. Numb 51. Again I may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error as I shall shew chapter 4 Numb 28.29 30 31 32 33 34 35. And this Principle will beat down to the ground all Opposition which an humble soul can make who will captivate her understanding in this case unto the obedience of faith as the Apostle speaketh 8. And when you ask me wherein you oppose general Councils I answer First that you oppose them even in that most fundamental ground upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to set as Judges with full Commission to determine securely all controversies obliging all Christians to conform to their Definitions by such Censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven Others will tell you divers other Oppositions you have with Councils and even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils when you charge them with speaking contradictions But when you come to speak your mind more largely you do your uttermost endeavours to make the world think that they have not sufficient assurance that any Council was as yet a Lawful General Council I need no further proof of these your endeavours then all those manifold Objections which you put and I answer in my 4. chapter Numb 20.21 9. And when you ask again why you are charged as if you were opposite to the true Catholike Church I answer Christ had in all ages since his time a true Catholik Church and consequently he had such a Church upon earth when your Reformation as you call it began But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many and very important points of doctrine not onely the Roman but all other Churches upon earth Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholike Church in many and very important points And in plain English I tell you this argument which is in lawful form is unanswerable And when you say that when you differ without opposition you keep the peace of the Church without question I answer That your Reformers did apparently in many and most important points differ from all Churches Christ had then upon the Earth in opinion of publick Doctrine censuring such and such Points as they all held to be Erronious Superstitious opposite to the Word of God and in this opposition you continue still though in this whole age you have not been able to name one age in this last thousand years in which Christ had a truly Catholike Church upon Earth agreeing with you in those many and most important points in which your Reformers taxed us to have opposed the Scriptures And as for exterior division you cannot name the Church upon earth from which you did not divide your selves at your Reformation And I challenge you to tell me if you can to what Church on Earth then visible you did joyn your selves or who acknowledged you to be of their communion 10. To prove yet further that we are not bound to submit our judgements to the Church you use as you say my own argument That we are bound to submit our judgement onely to those who can judge of the inward act But Sir I never said any such thing for how know we whether the Scripture Writers or the Apostles themselves did know without
which knowledge they could not judge of the interior Acts of all men from their time to the end of the world and yet all these men upon due Proposition of their Doctrine are obliged to submit their interior acts to their Doctrine But I said that which you had rather a mind to mistake then answer For I said That Christ should have left a very miserable Church and should have gathered a most heart-dis-united sort of people if after the reading of Scriptures after which they wrangle so fiercely He had left them no other Judge but their own private judgements subject to such varietie in understanding the Scriptures what Law-maker said I was ever so inconsiderate as to leave only a Book of Lawes to his Common-wealth without any living Judge to whom all were to submit Then I added True it is that to submit exteriorly to Temporal Judges sufficeth they being able onely to judge of the exterior man Did I say this of general Councils No did I not as it were to prevent your Objection expresly adde But God in whose name the Church teacheth and commandeth all which she teacheth and commandeth searcheth the heart and the reynes and looketh upon the minde which is the seat of true or false belief This God I say chiefly exacteth that those of his Church be of one faith interiorly or else they be not of one faith for faith essentially consisteth in the interior judgement He hath all reason to exact that interiorly they be all of one faith For he could not seriously have desired their salvation without he required of them by way of most rigorous obligation to do that which is so wholy necessary to salvation that without it no man is saved For without true faith it is impossible to please God This and much more to this effect I presse there hotly and yet I am not so much as answered coldly 11. But you skip to my admiration at your doctrine which indeed giveth a very admirable licence to any Cobler to peruse the Decrees of general Councils and to reject them too if in his review of them he doth not find them Resolved into the infallible text of clear Scripture Of which Doctrine I have already spoken fully Num. 4. And I think I had reason to say that the wisest man in the world is then most likely to erre when in his interiour judgement he goeth quite contrary to all Christendome Of this I have given a very clear Reason here in my 7. Number which will stop your mouth from calling every where to have me prove the Churches infallibility until you come to my 4 chapter or if it doth not I must desire you in this place to turn unto it And in the very next chapter I shall shew that though the Scripture be most infallible yet it is not sufficient by it self alone unlesse you take it as it sends us to the Church to decide all controversies As for Saint Athanasius did ever he oppose his judgement against the Definition of a lawful general Council Nay did it not appear by the Council of Nice standing for his Doctrine that he might well know the true Church lawfully assembled under the lawful Pastor confirming their Acts would teach as he taught And because he knew this authority relying on the assistance of the Holy Ghost to be more then humane he might well oppose a greater human authority By the way it is strange you should carp at us for calling our selves Roman Catholiks as if say you no others were Catholikes whereas to avoid this very strife impertinent now to our purpose I used that very name by which no others are excluded And in this impertinent strife you say many things of which you prove not one 12. I passe to that which is pertinent to the purpose that it is a very desperate consequence flowing from the premisses of your Doctrine permitting any private person so to peruse the Definitions of Councils that he might freely reject them in his private judgement which is the seat of all Faith if he judged them not to be resolved into the infallible authority of Scripture upon this ground that we have nothing infallible but the Texts of Scripture For these Texts being not able to decide all necessary controversies I still adde unlesse you take them as they send us to the Church by themselves as I shall fully shew in the next Chapter it is clear that we shall remain disputing without end or possibility of end unless God hath given an infallible assistance to the Church wherefore not to grant such an absurdity we are necessitated to expound those Scriptures promising that Christ will be with his Church unto the end of the world That he will send them the Spirit of Truth to abide with them to teach them all Truth that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her That we must hear her under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens That she is the Pillar and ground of Truth and diverse others of which I speak chapter 4. to be extended to an infallible assistance for an assistance joyned with fallibilitie will still leave us jarring as appears by our own Doctrine 13. Being loath to stand too long to such a consequence you make a long impertinent discourse about the perusal of the collection of all the judgements of all the Fathers of all Ages every where Good Sir tell me what connexion hath the perusal of every judgement of every Father of every Age every where with that Obligation which I put of following these Cannons of Councils which make to the decisions of those most known controversies about which we contend Is the judgement of every Father of every Age the judgement of a general Council Why then do you run your self out of breath in inpugning that which is nothing to our purpose and which I never spake of rather then in holding close to the matter But since you first bring the authority of Councils to a little more then nothing and here again the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse then nothing in order to the ending of controversies this your violence against any provocation to Antiquity and consent of Fathers Will give me leave to make this Treatise much shorter then at the beginning appeared possible For it is evident out of your own words that it is to no end to deal with you out of Fathers and I am resolved to deal with no body but to some end I will therefore humour you in this and I will lay aside all that might hereafter be said concerning the Opinion of Fathers But do not think that I do this as if that what you here said against the authority of Fathers found any credit with me or as if what you say were in the least degree hard to be answered For you your self cannot be ignorant that we alledge plenty of such Holy Fathers against you as are confessed by your selves to have been the prime
be imbrac'd with as infallible an assent as the doctrine of the Prophets and Apost Yea there have bin many miracles wrought to testifie many very many of those points in particular in which we differ frō you As you may see shew'd by Brierly only by looking in his Index 5. miracles but see him particularly T. 2. C. 3 Tr. S. 7. Subdivis And Tr. 1. S. 5. There you shall see how solidly grounded these Miracles are against which you can object nothing which is not objected with equal probabilitie by Heathens against the Miracles of the Prophets and by Jewes against those of the Apostles Tell me then if these two motives though there be yet many others be not as powerful inducements to move us to acknowledge that God hath given his Church infallible authoritie to teach us faithfully which she received from him as were those motives for which the Jewes did prudently believe that the Scripture given them by David by Salomon by Nahum by Amos and others were written with infallible authoritie by them having Commission from God to write what they did write We then believe the Church to have such a Commission with as good security as they acknowledged this Commission in those Scripture writers Whereas the ground upon which you believe Scripture is thought to be foolish and Chimerical by some of your best Writers 34. Yet to shew further how unsecurely the greater part of your Religion did ground their faith I did add this argument that the true Original Scriptures were written in languages not knowne to one among ten thousand if we speake of a perfect knowledge Others must trust the Translations of private men and believe them rather then the Translations used by the Church in general Councils Is it not cleere that the Authority of such Translations is far greater and far more to be judged to agree with the true Original then any of your private Mens Translations You your selfe confesse that Translations are only so far Gods word as they agree with the originals whence I infer that no body in your opinion can believe any point upon the authority of any Translations until he be assured that such a point agreeth with the true Hebrew or true Greek Original How disappointed then be most of your Religion especially your women who so fiercely fly upon us for believing the Church whilest they themselves must either believe nothing for they cannot believe any thing upon the credit of the English Translation until they know how exactly it agreeth with the true Greek or true Hebrew Original which is wholy impossible for them or else they must merely take upon trust the most fallible Translations for the infallible Original and trust rather in this most important point the learning and fair dealing of those private Ministers deeply interessed in this cause then trust the gratest authority upon earth which is a general Council having so strong promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost I intreat you here to see Chapter 4. Numb 9. 35. Again I pray tell me how you learned Ministers who have so full knowledge of these languages as to Translate and upon your own knowledge to judge of true Translations made by others of you it is that I ask how you come to know and know so sufficiently as to ground an infallible assent in your selves and others when your Translations agree with the true Original For you have now confessed that Translations are only so far Gods word as they agree with the Originals And you must mean the true Originals or else you say nothing for agreeing with false or doubtful Originals will not make them Gods undoubted Word Tell me I say it again and again how do you know which be the true and undoubtedly true Originals and upon what secure ground do you know it The true Originals be either Hebrew or Greek As for the Hebrew all must know that the ancient Hebrew Copies were all written without points that is in full substance without Vowels Now they be the Vowels which make or marre the word and sense for a Vowell addeth the soul and the sound to the consonants and maketh them signify most different things For example for a Ball write only b ll to which consonants if you adde an a it is Ball adde an e it is Bell adde an u and it is a Bull So that great confusion must needs follow if the true points that is the true Vowells were not put to the same Consonants Well now again all must know that a good while after the time of Christ and his Apostles the Jewish Rabbies under pretence of avoyding the mistakes which might happen in the lesse skilfull in the Hebrew tongue which then was almost worn out did take the old Hebrew Testament and put the points that is the Vowels unto it so that the old Testament we now use came from these Jewish hands Tell me then how know you infallibly whither these perfidious Jewes had skill and honesty enough to deliver to us their Copies with the true points and Vowells and yet all depends on this The consonants alone will not assure us in these unskilful and so remote ages For the least change in appoint maketh most contrary things to be all one for no Man can tell especially infallibly whether these words an Angel had a b ll in his hand should be read thus an Angel had a Ball in his hand or a Bell or a Bill or a Bull. Put a false Vowel and it is all one To tast cheese and to tost cheese all one to be fatt and to be fitt to increase in Grace and to increase in Grece all one to eat a bitter fig and to eat a better fig. A pot ful of butter and a Pit ful of Batter will be the same Hence you see the small infallibility you have of the possessing the true undoubted Originall Hebrew old Testament As for the new testament Saint Mathewes Gospel was Originally written in Hebrew and that Originall is quite lost Now the other Greek Originalls which we have have a stupendious Variety He who found the word Infallible so unfortunate to him which you obiect to me telleth of his own knowledge a story most unfortunate to you and yours which I have also h eapd by an other way His words are these In my hearing Bishop Usher professed that whereas he had of many yeares before a desire to publish the Testament in Greek with Various Lections and Annotations and for that purpose had used great diligence and spent much money to furnish himself with Manuscripts yet in conclusion he was forced to desist utterly least if he should ingenuously have noted all the several differences of readings which himself had collected the incredible multitude of them almost in every verse should rather have made Men Atheisticall then satisfy them in the true reading of any particular passage An evident signe that the Governours of the Church did not onely rely
to the Iewes Ninthly you ask if the Pope and Council do differ at any time about some question what shall be defined I answer nothing shall be defined because this essential hinderance manifesteth no definition of such a particular question to it at that time necessary for the preservation of the Church for if this depended upon such a present definition the Holy Ghost whom you still forget would not forget to inspire the parties requisite to do their duties Tenthly you ask how my opinion stands with theirs who affirm the government of the Church to be Monarchicall by Christs institution I answer our government in England was Monarchical this last five hundred years and yet our Monarchs could not do all things without a Parliament Again those who make the Pope sufficiently assisted to define all alone cannot possibly deny what I say to wit that he is sufficiently assisted when he defineth with a Councel Eleventhly you ask How many general Councells have been opposite to one another I answer Not so much as one You ask again in which or with which did he not erre I answer he neither erred in or with any In the Nicene he erred not as you will grant nor in the three next General Councels as your Church of England grants He subscribed not in the Councel of Ariminum how then did he erre in it yea because he subscribed not that Councel is never accounted lawful by any but Arrians or if your English Church accounted that a lawful Councel they must admit that whilest they admit the first foure Councels So that I am amazed to see a learned man four or five times object the contrariety of the Councel of Ariminum to the Councel of Nice to prove from thence that two lawful general Councels can be opposite to one another you knowing well that this Councel of Ariminum was no lawful Councel the cheif Bishop and head of the Church not subscribing in it Tell mee I pray if by all your great reading you can find one single Holy Father who did ever censure any one general Councel of doctrine in any one point either false or opposite to any former lawful general Councel In what age then live we which licenseth every Mechanical fellow freely to tax the Councels of all ages of errours against Scripture This is the fruit of crying out in what Councel or with what Councel did not the Pope erre Twelfthly you ask me I pray see my 12. Number above fine did ever any of the ancient councels determine of their own infallibility I answer the ancientest councel of all said Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us Could any thing fallible seem good to the Holy Ghost Or to a council lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost as all lawful councils were ever supposed by themselves to be and upon this ground they ever assumed an authority sufficient not only to be securely followed by the whole Church in their definitions but denounced an Anathema to the rejectors of their definitions which had been wickedly done if there might have been errours in faith The most bloudy persecution of tyrants could not have been halfe so pernitious to the Church as it was thus to be taught and compelled by the unanimous authority of Christendome to embrace that as Catholick doctrine which is an errour in faith And surely a practice so Universal so frequent and yet so pernitious would have been cried out upon over and over again by the most zealous and learned ancient Fathers who notwithstanding never opened their mouthes against this proceding of councils which could not be justifiable For this proceeding of setling a court of so great authority and an everlasting Court to be called in matters of greatest moment until the end of the world so to teach the world in all ages the Catholick truth in greatest points if in place of this truth errors against faith could have been perpetually obtruded even to the whole world and that with the greatest authority in the world and this under pain of being cut off from the body of Christ imagin if you can a thing more pernitious then this And yet this was the proceeding of all antiquity if the Church were fallible as you say Thirtenthly you ask me what I think of Nazianzens opinion about councels in his Ep. to Procopius the 12 as you say but I find it in the 42. Sir I think if what you have said against the proof of any point out of the General consent of Fathers be true no single proof brought from some one of them can have any force out of your mouth what force soever it might have had out of a Mouth used to speak otherwise of them But you are pressing asking shall I tell you yes Sir tell me Yet let me tell you that what he saith will be nothing to the purpose unles he can be shewed to speak of a lawful free General Councel called and directed by the chiefe Pastor of the Church presiding in it now Sir tell me doth he speak of such a councel His words are I am thus affected as to shun all meetings of Bishops if I must speak the truth for I never saw any good end of a Synod nor that had an end of evils more then an addition Sir you much wrong this grave Father if you think he speaketh of such councils as I now mentioned Before his speaking these words there had been but one such council to wit that of Nice Let us hear from himself his opinion of this one councel out of those Treatises which goe just before his Epistles which you might have read as well as them In the first of these Treatises being asked the most certain doctrine of faith He answereth that it is that which was promulgated by the Holy Fathers at Nice that he never did prefer nor was able to prefer any thing before it so He Tract 50. And in his next Treatise he explicates this faith at large And in the end he saith he doth imbrace the treatise of this council to the uttermost power of his mind knowing it opposed with invincible verity against all Hereticks and in his Orations to Saint Athanasius he sayeth The Fathers of this council were gathered by the Holy Ghost Saint Gregory then who speaketh thus had the same spirit that the other Saint Gregory the great who said I doe professe my selfe to reverence the first fower councils as I reverence the fower bookes of the Gospel And in this manner do I reverence the fift council Whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anathema l. 1 Epistol Ep. prope finem He then who thus reverenced lawful general councils did not doubtles speak the former words concerning them But did he perhaps speak them of lawful particular Councils No how then It was hard fortune to live in a time in which the Arrians had so great power that they disturbed the lawful proceedings
of several particular councils Hence the councils of Seleucum Tirus AriminuÌ„ Millan Smyrna came to unfortunate conclusions rather encreasing then lessening the former evils Neither were the times so altered that there appeared any great likelyhood that in those parts any better conclusion could be expected of that council to which he was called when he writ that Epistle So also Saint Basil his bosom friend writing at that time to Saint Athanasius Ep. 52. said He thought it impossible for a General Council to be assembled in those times Clear then it is that Saint Gregory spoke only of such councils as had lately been held and could be held in those daies in which the Arrians would be sure to crosse all that might be good and to make those particular meetings patronize their cause What you further speak of a private Bishop of Bitonto telling the Fathers of the council of Trent to their face of their falling with one consent from Religion to superstition from Faith unto infidelity from Christ unto Antichrist from God to Epicurus is a thing I never yet did read in any credible Historian And I dare say never any credible Historian from Christs time until that time ever could find such a saucy speech to relate in History used as yet by any modest or immodest Catholicke to the face of a Councel And can you put on a forehead to countenance such a speech not having any one example from Christs time to this day as I said So it is The Catholikes and onely the Roman Catholikes have been the men who were still imployed in upholding the authoritie of councils of Fathers and you cannot I say it again and again find an example from Christs time unto this age of any who were not known Hereticks who were carping at the authority of councils or Fathers You spoke full enough before of the Fathers I think you have not wanted much of doing your worst against councels although you said in another place In what do we oppose Councels and you would seem to acknowledge them the highest Tribunal on earth though so much be said for their vilification And when you have cried down the authority of Fathers patronized the reprochful language of this private Man against a whole council of what authority do you think this one private mans saying could be 21. Hence you see how little all this serveth for an answer of what yet is to be answered in the 21 Number of my former paper specially when I shall have added the other proofs which I have of the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to his Church Of this by and by Now you invite me to re-examin the Determinations of the council of Trent It appeareth by what I said Chap. 2. Num. 4.5.6.7 That it is fine doctrine that determinations of councils should be examined by such as I and you are Have we such assistance of the Holy Ghost as councils have Have we halfe the authority or any thing like one quarter of even the wit and learning which they have Sir Let us two set down and examine how true this is which I shall now say Either the deteâ—minations of General Councils be such as are evidently against clear Scripture or the Texts which we think they gain-say be not evident to the contrary which if they be not it would be a wonderful imprudence in me and you to think we should surer hit right upon the meaning of obscure places in Scripture then the whole council hath done But now if the places alledgeable against the councils be evidently cleare Texts do you think to perswade any pious and prudent Man that so very many and many of them so very eminent for piety and for prudence as are known to have subscribed to so many General Councils not to have been able to see that which hath been evidently set down before all their Eyes in clear Scripture God give us Humility God give us charity God have mercy upon us in the bitter day of his Iudgment if we passe so bitter a Iudgment against the whole Church representative And yet if you passe not this bitter Iudgment you will never passe this objection without being posed 22. Good Sir what mean you here to bid me say no more of this point concerning the Holy Ghost giving to his Church an assistance reaching to infallibility but you would have me now measure the infallibility of our councils or Churches by their determinations and to see how they agree with Scripture Let us not say you see your opinions by infallibility but your infallibility by your determinations set forth by your Church Remember Sir what you find in the 7 Number of this chapter where you undertake to instruct me in the right way of disputing according to which I should not stand shewing the Churches determinations to be such as should be obeyed but I should shew à priori as they say that she is infallible and that therefore her definitions are to be admitted Now when I come to do what you would have me to do you cry out say no more of this point but go now the other way cast the weight of this argument upon the other shoulder It galleth me upon this Sir by your good leave I must dwell upon this argument yet a great while The more it presseth the better it is 23. This I will do by passing to my 22. Number Of my 22th Number where first you stumble and then tread upon Luther Let him ly where you will He is no better then his Fathers I step over him and so prove this infallibility of the Church I cite Saint Paul Tim. 3.15 calling the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of Faith May not all securely in their faith rely upon the pillar of Truth May they not most groundedly ground themselves upon the ground of Truth it self You answer There is a double pillar and a double ground one principal the Scripture the other less principal and subordinate the Church But this double dealing in distinguishing helpeth you not The Church must still be a true pillar and a true ground of Truth The people believed God and Moses saith the Scripture Moses was infinitely under God yet this hindred not his being truly such a pillar of Truth as was to be relied upon securely in matters of Faith I apply all to Moses in respect of God what you apply to the Scripture in respect of the Church And yet after all this as they might rely upon Moses as a pillar of Truth so we upon the Church All true believers for two thousand years before the writing of Scripture had no other ground to stand upon but this Church the ground of Truth And therefore a ground sure enough and yet not sure enough if fallible Yea the true believers to whom Saint Paul did write these words The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth had not the whole Canon of the Scripture
the immediate assistance of the holy Ghost which they had undoubtedly And here as if you had proved some thing you have a fling at the Council of Trent for sitting so long a thing as little derogatory to that Councils infallibility as that much disputing and making several speeches was derogatory to the infallibility of the council of the Apostles in which onely one short Decree was made Look on the many Canons and Decrees for Reformation in matters subject to great Disputes Oppositions of secular power which crossed not the Apostles first Council Look on the multitude of Heresies condemned after a full hearing of all that could be said by all parties and it must needs be rather a point of satisfaction to all then a scandal unto any to see so mature consideration used But both a slow and a hastie and a mean delivery of any ones condemnation will be distasteful to the condemned person 27. As for the Authoritie of St. Athanasius calling the definition of the council of Nice by which the Consubstantiality of God the Son with his Father The Word of God it sheweth clearly that this prime Doctor held that God delivered his Word unto us by the council Your Answer is that the councils Definition did not bind with Relation to the Authority of the Council but by the authothority of Scripture Ministerially proposed by the council Sir I have already shewed Chap. 2. Numb 4. that the clearest Text which the council had to cite even that text I and my Father are one can be so expounded by an Arrian that it doth no more then probably declare the consubstaÌ„tiality But as you say here If the text be but probable we caÌ„not froÌ„ thence urge this probable sense of it as an object of faith But S. Athanasius urgeth CoÌ„substantialitie after the Nicene council as Gods VVord and an Object of Faith which he cannot doe with a Relation to a Text onely probable in Scripture Therefore he doth it with Relation to the infallibility of the councils Authority which council if it had onely Authority to propose like a Minister such and such Texts as may be severally taken and consequently mistaken by an Interpreter who is onely fallible could not be said in its Interpretations to propose the undoubted Word of God And though Saint Athanasius held that as truth before the council in order to himself who was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the ancient Doctrine of the Church yet in order to those who were not before the council convinced by that Verily he could nor boldly denounce this as an infallible meaning of Gods Word obliging all O! This Declaration of Gods Word by the council he boldly said The Word of God by the Council of Nice remained for ever After this you come in again with the council of Ariminum contending that council as well to be believed for it self as the council of Nice And you think if more exceptions could have been made against the authority of the council of Ariminum Saint Austin against his Arrian adversary might easily have Prevailed by insisting onely upon the authority of the council of Nice which he waveth and goeth to arguments out of Scripture Sir A man of reading cannot but know that the council of Ariminum is never by the Fathers no nor by your Church of England numbred among the first foure councils which foure by addition of this council had it been a lawful council should have been made Five And you might as well think that I might prevail against you by only citing the council of Trent which I never cited yet but stood wholly on other arguments For I know as we in vain dispute with Heathens out of Scripture or out of Saint Matthewes Gospel against Manichâ—ans or out of the Machabees against you so Saint Aâ—stâ—â— in vain had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it as you do at that of Trent He being well furnished with other arguments out of Scriptures admitted by him intended by them onely at that time to overthrow him and not to meddle with a long contention fit to fill a book alone about the validity of the council of Nice and invalidity of that of Ariminum as we two for the like reason doe not stand onely contesting about the authority of the council of Trent I am now for a long time to contest with you about the Scripture onely as Saint Aâ—stin did with him 28. But before I enter further upon this contestation about this controversie of the Infallibility of the Church I must put you in mind of your own doctrines which teacheth that all necessary controversies are clearly decided according to the truth by plain Scripture This controversie then being one of the most necessary must clearly according to your doctrine be decided for you against me by plain Scripture If then I can but shew that it is not thus clearly decided against me I clearly shew that I hold no errour in this point For all errour in such a necessary point as this is can be demonstrated to be against plain Scripture What I hold to wiâ—t that the Church is Infallible cannot be demonstrated by plain Scripture to be so Therefore what I hold is no error Now I must prove that what I hold of the infallibility of the Church cannot by clear Scripture be demonstrated to be an error This I prove thus The Scripture is not so clear against this as it is for this Therefore this cannot by clear Scripture be demonstrated to be an error My first proposition must be shewed by citing as clear texts for what I hold of this point as you can bring against it Well then for this point I have alledged in the beginning of this chapter the text promising That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against this Church and that text which tels us we must hear the Church under pain of being by Gods judgement accounted as Publicans and Heathens and that the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth 29. In my 23. Numb of my former Treatise I adde a fourth Text Behold I am with you all daiâ—s Of my 23th Number even to the consummation of the world Out of this such like promises made to the Apostles we prove their infallibility in teaching in writing c. But these words are to be verified unto the consummation of the world therefore they must not only contain a promise made of being with the Apostles who died a thousand and 6 hundred yeares ago but of being with the Prelats of the Church their successors who shall be to the consummation of the world Your answer to this Text shall be rendred in your own words that you may not complain of foul play Your words were Although the promise be extendible to the end of the world yet it is not necessary to understand it so as that there shall alwayes be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles
again this obedience he speaks of would be rational obedience and therefore not blind For to follow such a Guide which is always ruled by Christ and therefore never swerves from his word if this can be made good to me that any Church doth and cannot do other is very rationall and not blind obedience If the saying and definition of the Church be assured by Christ and his word to be according to Christ and his word it is necessary to be obedient to it as to what I finde in Scripure though I do not comprehend the reason of it as the Scripture doth bind to faith without dispute so would the Church were I assured by the Scripture that the Church could not swerve from it But here are two things wanting one is of a proof that the Church hath not swerved And a second that it cannot swerve from the word of God For my faith must build it self immediately not upon the former because the power of swerving is not sufficiently secured by the negative but it must be built upon the impossibilitie and this should be demonstrated And still I must mind you that I speake of the Vniversall Church convented in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Supreme Pastor Ans And I still say that the Universall Church so constituted is not free from the least danger of swerving from the word of God And this in grosse were enough untill it were made good by sound Argument Yet also particularly First he meanes the Universall Church representatively for otherwise all cannot come together but then let us have an account why there could not be admitted to the titles of the Trent Councell that which the â—rench so much urged namely representing the Universall Church If it did represent the Universal Church why might it not be said in the title If it did not how does he say the Vniversall Church convented in a General Council 2. A Supreme Pastor in your sense should be proved and not supposed For we acknowledge no Supreme Pastor but Christ which can give life or law to all the Church He the Pastor and Bishop of our souls 1 Pet. 2.25 He the chief Pastor 1 Pet. 5.4 And all Bishops under him do equally participate a Vicarial care of the Church But thirdly the Trent Council according to you was general and confirmed by the Supreme Pastor and Vigilius was the Tutilarie Saint of the valley of Trent and yet the Trent Councell swerved grossely from the word of God and particularly in the matter of half communion as in the twentie first session notwithstanding Christ his institution and the severall interpretations of the Doctors and Fathers acknowledged against them in the first chap. of that session and although from the begining of Christian Religion the use under both kinds was not unfrequent as is confessed in the second ch Fourthly if the Church so constituted cannot swerve from the word of God why did the Trent Councell feare to determine what is the nature of original sin which Viga urged them to upon good reasons And why did they not determine whether the blessed Virgin was exempted from original infection whereof the Franciscans so much urged the affirmative to be defined the Dominicans the negative And yet in saying non esse suae intentionis it was not of their intention to comprehend in this Decree wherein original sin is handled the blessed and immaculate Virgine they do interpretatively exempt her though St. Paul and all holy Doctâ—â—â— did not exempt her as the Dominicans urged and so they do in effect contradict their universal proposition wherein it is said Propagatione non imitatione transfusum omnibus at least it makes that definition uncertain as the German Protestants noted Therefore that which followes in his Paper doth not follow in reason This Church guiding by her infalible Doctrine is this way the Church diffusive guided now by this doctrine was promised this direct way Such a way we were promised a way so direct represented that fools cannot erre by it Ans These words might have been all spared for they are all as Ciphers till one thing be proved and that is the infalible Doctrine as a property inseparable to the Church If the Church goes this way to prove her selfe the way she is not the way because she goes out of the way or else Christ was out of the way and the Primitive Church was not the Church when for so many yeares it is confessed that there was no General Council and is not proved that there was a Pope in their sence as indeed there was none So then the Church universal is not the way universally so direct that fools cannot erre for in all times there was not the universall Church so represented nor the Decrees of the represented Church so confirmed because there was no Pope And therefore if yet the Church had another way then we have more reason to go that way than the way which leads to Rome and from Rome we know not whither but to darknesse and those that follow this way are not wiser by following it for they are not wise in following it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Hierocles said well Both these things are good to know that we do not know and to know what we do not know And surely if we should go their blinde way we should neither know what wise men know nor know neither that we are ignorant Therefore Catarinus and Marinarus took another way to assert certainty of Grace namely by Scripture as we have it in the History of the Trent Council wherein they shaked the Adversaries of the opinion and brought them to some moderation And this example of theirs in following the Scriptures might if we were doubtfull of our cause yet incourage us to give check to that which follows The Scripture as some may conceive for you dare not defend it is not this way Ans All conceive that it is the way but your Church Yea all your Church are not for this Church way Besides those named the Arch-Bishops of Collen Catarinus Marinarus how many even in the face of the Trent Councell have urged Scripture against all other Arguments The antient Fathers made the Scripture their way and rule and therefore their authorities are not answered to by my Antagonist for that they are unanswerable Therefore we dare and do defend it for it will defend us in the doing of it But this Campian bragged of our diffidence We return as he did who was to be put to death as Tacitus relates it when the Executioner bad him beare it bravely he replied Vtinam tu tam fortiter feries So I would my Adversary had as strongly opposed as we are in hope to answer But it were better for them to have either lesse confidence or to add more strength As Archidamus said to his son after an unsuccesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So let them give stronger Arguments or quit the cause Let us see his reason For
put in such words as I knew how to answer and leaved out his true words I altered no words but expounded him in them as I had reason For if every one might be left free without such a Judge to what he judged best this freedome would be simple or morall If simple then it would be without a fault and if morall it would be without a fault but now he denies that he meant a morall freedome Yet is it best for him to understand such a freedome according to his principles for if we have not a morall freedome without a fault to believe what we judge best then have we lesse reason of giving undisputed assent to an externall Judge since we are awed and commanded under peril of a fault to take heed what we do believe And therefore cannot we believe this Judge with blind obedience because it seems now we may not believe what we will but we must see good reason for what we do believe And good reason it is that good reason should exclude blind obedience And indeed his consequence is false in terminis for we have not a simple freedome to believe what we will as I said because the understanding naturally assents to truth apparent But this he takes no notice of as if I had said no such thing How much of my words he takes away privatively which must inferre a variation of my sense may be gathered by compare of my copy with his rehersall and it appears that negatively he hath taken away a great part of my words for he saies to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so his argument is null and his vindication nullified Onely I must also note that he did not well weigh his own consequence if every man were left free to hold what he judged best we should have as many Religions as private judgements for in principles of Religion we are not like to differ if we believe the Scripture and particular Controversies which you direct your discourse to if you speak ad idem if not you are more to be blamed do not make different Religions because then you must have different Religions amongst your selves In the begining of this number my Adversary would faine take me tripping or enterfearing upon my own words by a consequence Num. 4. because as he thinks I take away all meanes of regulating our judgement and yet say we should not follow our own judgement of discretion without meanes of regulating our judgement Ans His reason may well be put into this forme he that taketh away all infallible means takes away all means able to produce an infallible assent but I take away all infallible means Then I deny his assumption I do not deny all infallible meanes I do not deny all meanes because I deny some to be infallible and I do not deny all infallible means because I deny some that he thinks infallible in both he would impose upon me the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a particulari All means are not infallible and there may be and is other infallible meanes besides those which he supposeth and I deny The Scripture is an infallible mean to hold to this I deny the infallibilitie of Councils And then again secondly I deny a necessity of infallible assent to all points of question either part of the contradiction may consist with salvation For corroboration of his opinion about the infallibilitie of Councils he brings in afterward St. Gregory the Great 's saying I do professe my self to reverence the first four Councils as I reverence the four books of the Gospell And in like manner I do receive the fifth Council whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anathema Ans First we do not think the judgement of St. Gregory to be greater than the judgement of the four Councils if we do not think them infallible we have no cause or reason to be urged with one Gregory Secondly we also reverence the learning of that Gregory as he reverenceth the books of the Gospell if the as be taken in similitude not proportion in the quality not equality Thirdly if the opinion of St. Gregory should prevaile with me why doth not the Authority of the Fathers whom I produced for our cause and the answers I gave to his Authorities before prevaile with him Testem quem quis inducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se Fourthly let us marke his own words And I also receive the fifth Councill in like manner Now the fifth Council was that of Constantinople wherein Vigilius was condemned in his defence of the three Chapters And the Council proceeded without his consent yea and against his mind So that if St. Gregory's authoritie were authentick the cause were spoiled for so infallibilitie should not be stated in a Council with the Popes confirmation Fifthly oppose and confront Gregory with Gregory Nazianzen with the Roman and which of them shall we believe for Councils Neither doth the whole machin of our Religion tople and tumble to the ground upon my former principle as he imagined though he would presse me more strongly to shew upon what Authoritie I take Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God This by the way should not have been brought into question with us since we give more reverence to the Scriptures than they do and therefore are like to have a firmer faith in it to be the word of God than they The main design of my Adversary at first I suppose was to debate the faith of particular points the Scripture being supposed to be the word of God although not supposed by him to be the onely rule But therefore let me returne his own words changing the tables that the whole machin of his Religion doth tople and tumble to the ground upon his ground by pressing him to shew by what authority he takes Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God before he hath proved the infallibilitie of the Church His reason follows because there cannot be a more groundless ground upon which you by rejecting the infallible authority of the Church are forced to build your whole religion to wit that you by meer reading of Scripture can by its light as you discover the sun by its light discover it so manifestly to be the undoubted word of God that this discovery sufficeth to ground your infallible assent to that verity Ans First he is not surely right in this that I am forced by rejecting his way of believing Scripture to this way If he be then I am right in the choice of my principle upon my refusal of his but Mr. Chillingworth whom he blames me for differing from in this point does find as it may seem and as he himself professeth a middle way of grounding faith in the Scripture to be the word of God namely by the authoritie of universall Tradition which as any can distinguish from this way so he doth distinguish from the Pontifician
way as is known but this we shall have fuller occasion to speake of hereafter Secondly whereas he saies that I say by meer reading of Scripture c. he supposeth that which is not so For I do not deny the use of other meanes to further us towards our assent intrinsecall arguments from Scripture extrinsecall of the Church but that which privately we resolve our faith of Scripture to be the word of God in is the autopistie of Scripture which God by faith infused shews unto us And by Catarinus his reasoning in the Trent Council about subjective certitude of grace private faith is not inferior to the Catholick faith in point of certaintie but onely in universalitie Thirdly the Church according to my Adversary hath its power of binding to faith by a Generall Council with the Popes confirmation of the Decrees then let us know by what Council all the parts of Scripture were confirmed by a Generall Council with the Popes consent for the first six hundred years somewhat might be put in as towards the use of some parts of the Apocryphall books but it doth not appear that they were canonized as to faith nor any of the Canonicall books declared by them as quo ad nos authentick For they were wont to meddle with little but emergent questions whereas of those parts of Scripture which were generally received there was no question whether they were the word of God And being not received by the authoritie of a Council establishing them what ground have those who differ from us to receive them since they say the infallible Authoritie is in the Church Representative with the Popes confirmation He goes on And it must be a far surer discoverie than that by which we discover the Sun by his light for this discovery can onely ground a naturall certaintie the other must ground a supernaturall not certainty but infallibilitie Ans The supernaturall habit of faith hath it felf more to intelligence than to science Intelligence is known to be that naturall habit whereby the understanding is disposed to assent to the truth of principles when the terms of those principles are known And faith doth beare more proportion to this as being the supernaturall habit in regard of cause whereby we are disposed to believe supernaturall verities whereof the first is by our opinion that the Scripture is the word of God taking the Scripture materially Now as the principles naturall are seen through their own light by the naturall habit of intelligence so are the supernatural principles seen through their own light by the supernaturall habit of faith And as certainly as I see the Sun by its light with mine eye so certainly do I see the truth of naturall principles by the naturall habit of intelligence and as certainly as I see the veritie of naturall principles by intelligence so do I see supernaturall verities by the supernaturall habit of faith yet not so evidently as I see the Sun by its light or naturall principles through their light But it seems by my Adversary that this will not serve for he urgeth not onely for a certainty but infallibilitie To this we answer first Take certaintie properly and I think there is no fundamentum in re for this distinction It may be because we are wont to use the term of infallibilitie to points of faith we think that whatsoever is certain is not infallible and it is true in regard of the manner or meane of certaintie so that whatsoever is certain is not infallible for so certaintie seems to be more generall but certainly whatsoever is to us certaine is also infallible as we take it in a generall sense But secondly if there be any degree of infallibilitie above certaintie we have it by this way of Divine faith infused by the Spirit of God because we are most sure of this principle that God cannot deceive nor be deceived therefore what we take upon his word we are most certain of and more than by our own discourse and reason for that is in the nature of it more imperfect Thirdly this is not so wisely considered to straine our faith to the highest peg of utmost infallibilitie as they determine the ground of it namely the Authoritie of the Church because the Authoritie of it as it is contradistinguished to the Spirit and word is but humane and as it is resolved into the word by the Spirit so it comes into a coincidence with us Fourthly whereas he sometimes upbraided us with an essentiall defect of faith because we take it not by their way of the Church it appeares yet that some of our Church have in case of martyrdome held the faith of Scripture and of points taken from thence as infallibly as they have held Scripture upon tenure of the Church And it seems ours did not hold the Scripture or the points upon the authoritie of the Church for they differed from the Ponteficians unto the death about the Church and about points of Doctrine which the Papist urged they denied notwithstanding they were Doctrines of their Church Now according to the Pontifician argument if they had received the Scripture by the Authoritie of the Church they must upon the same reason have received every Doctrine proposed by the Church And therefore it seems they had a faith of Scripture infallible without the Roman infallibilitie Secondly the Spirit of God speaking in the Church is to them the efficient of faith But the Spirit of God speaks also in the Scripture If not how do they prove that the Spirit of God speakes in the Church if it does then may we believe him at first word and immediately as to the Church As to what he saith secondly that he hath shewed in his last chap. second Num. that a review of the definitions of a Council untill they be resolved into the rule of Scripture doth open a wide gap to heresie I need say no more than what hath been said in answer thereunto His meer saying so doth not surely make it so nor is it probable for it doth not open a gap to heresie materiall because Scripture is the rule of truth nor yet to heresie formall because it may be done without opposition to the Councils For simple dissent doth not include formall opposition But yet further he saith And for your importance of the matter I will here further declare in an example which hereafter will stand me in much use Let us take an Arrian Cobler to this man This your Doctrine giveth the finall review of the Council of Nice Ans Yes I must interpose in the severall passages of his storie of the case it doth but how It doth not give a review by way of authoritie to others but he is to take his own libertie for his own satisfaction in point of faith Otherwise he believes he knows not what and so in proportion he comes under the censure of Christ upon the Samaritan woman in the 4. of St. John the 22. Ye
worship ye know not what If the woman was not to be ruled by the judgement of the Samaritans why is a Cobler to be ruled by the authoritie of others since simply the authoritie of the Samaritans was as good as the authoritie of others and therefore our faith must be resolved into some higher ground than the authoritie of men He goes on in his case And you give him leave after he hath perused the definitions of this Council defining God the Son to be of the self same individuall substance with his Father to examine them untill he find them resolved into the infallible rule of Scripture Ans Yes we say he may take his own liberty to do so But also we say he ought to conferre with those who are learned that he may more easily finde the sense of Scripture the advice he takes from others doth not determine his assent but disposeth it It doth point him to it but he must see it with his own sight He doth examine them and chiefly how they doe agree with that text St. John the 10. chap. 30. verse I and my Father are one on which text you afterwards confesse the infallibilitie of this definition to be chiefly grounded Ans So did St. Athanasius professe as I told him in my last rejoinder and he doth not say any thing in deniall But as to the point as being clear in Scripture there are other texts plain enough as in the first Epistle of St. John the fifth chap. the twentieth verse in his son Jesus Christ this is the true God Indeed the whole verse is for our purpose And we know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding that we should know him that is true And we are in him that is true in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God He hath given us a mind that we should know Here is faith infused whereby we know him and therefore is not this faith an effect of the authoritie of the Church And this son is here said to be the true God not onely God nuncupatively as the Arrians and Socinians but the true God So Bartholomeus Petrus who makes the Supplement to Estius's Comment upon the Epistles and subjects all to the holy Roman Church Et nihil ominus etiam Filius ab Apostolo verbis expressis nominatur verus Deus parte hujus versus quarta quae sequitur hic est verus Deus So he And notwithstanding also the Son is named by the Apostle in expresse words the true God in the fourth part of this verse this is the true God Now in the examen of the conformitie of this definition with this text the Arrian Cobler by his poor understanding is easily able to see that which a wiser man would yet see sooner that he is put upon a necessitie to inquire how God the Son and his Father are one whether it be by affection onely as Arrians hold or one in the self same individuall Substance as the Council defineth Well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then This is no other than that which stands with our duty of obedience to that precept in the first Ep. to the Thes 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good And secondly were we to rest in the definition of Councils yet should we be put upon inquiry into the sense of their words which would make a trouble and a difference as the words of the Trent Council did to Soto and Viga And therefore if he could prejudice our cause with perplexities of ambiguities neither are they certain by their own Councils which sense to stand to since these learned men so eagerly combated upon different senses of the words of the Council upon the Decrees about Free-will and Predestination and though they had their interesse in the Council for learning and estimation yet it seems did not know the onely sense and true scope of the Synod as is said of them in the History of the Trent Council p. 216. My Adversary goes on And inquiring this he cals to mind that other text John the 17.21 Where Christ prayeth all his Disciples may be one thing as thou Father in me and I in thee So then let him proceed with the caution of this rule res non est subject a sermoni sed sermo rei The thing is not serviceable to the speech but the speech to the thing Here will the Cobler say because he hath been often instructed by his own Doctors Christ who said I and my Father are one thing demandeth that his Disciples may be one thing as he and his Father are one thing but he doth not demand that his Disciples may be all one thing in the self same individuall substance therefore he concludes Christ is not one thing in the self same individuall substance with his Father but one thing in affection onely as his Disciples might come to be one thing Ans But this Cobler if he had more mind to finde truth in Scripture than his own opinion might goe on and see that the Jews who were like to understand the words of Christ as observing what was said by him to them understood Christ not to speak that they were one by way of affection For because of this speech they took up stones to cast at him because he being a man made himself God as it is in the 33 ver of the 10. ch of St. John Which interpretation of his words our Saviour did not in the following verses deny although he seemed to wave that sense and yet also in effect brought it in by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 38 ver Secondly although if there had been no other text concerning Christ's Divinity there would not have been so clear a conclusion from the text of the Divinity of Christ yet if we compare it with other passages of the Scriptures we may well believe that sense and also if the text doth not afford that sense how shall we believe a Council when the Councill of Nice as Athanasius said urged this text thrice against the Arrians And therefore this exception against the sufficient clearnesse of Scripture in this point must be withdrawn or else they must condemne themselves because the Council of Nice determined the point not by their authority but by the text And therefore cannot the Cobler say as my Adversary prompts him false therefore is this definition of the Council which cannot be resolved into the infallible word of God in which all things necessary to Salvation as this point is are plainly set down as this place is not My Adversary first might have spoken more moderately not false is it therefore which the Council hath defined but not necessary because the sense of the words may be such when they are spoken betwixt God or him and his Disciples therefore they are such between his Father and him this is no rationall inference Duo cum idem dicunt non est idem When
blessing may be like to pitch upon that true sense of Scripture which may determine the judgement unto certain assent As by the conflict of hard things sparkes of fire do break out so by the industrious discussion of opinions truth may appear eminently But we cannot conclude the definitions intuitively and ipso facto infallible And why should we be obliged to stand to their declaration of truth as if they did also make it to be truth And why should we stand to their Conclusions when their discourse is fallible unlesse they go by Scripture And if they by Scripture examine opinions why should not we by Scripture examine their definitions as to our selves Which should be last in the determination Council or Scripture when Councils begin by it and determine with it Therefore I do not make them in no sense finall or none That which follows Now surely it is cleare c. unto the end of the number how little strength of reason hath it This in effect was answered immediately before My Adversary does us right in confessing our acknowledgement of the first four Generall Councils And also may we confesse that we think they thought they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define and finally to determine those Controversies but what then 1. What if they thought so We have liberty by our principles to think that inconcludent because we hold them not infallible in their judgement Not because they thought they had such power therefore they had it unlesse we should hold them infallible as we do not Neither is this thought of ours that they might think amiss of such power to be in them any prejudice to our acknowledgement of those first four General Councils because this opinion of theirs is no part of their determinations Secondly we distinguish All plenitude of power is taken either reduplicatively or specificatively for all that power which belongs to the whole Church the former if their opinion of themselves were infallible would serve his turne but we deny that they thought they had all power so and if they did think so we think they did not think right the latter power they might think they had and not think amisse but this serves not the turn for all authority of the Church doth not bind us to receive the definitions thereof so as to sink all examination of the truth thereof by Scripture Have not other courts a plenitude of power to hear and determine causes and yet are sometimes defective in point of law Their fallibility doth not proceed from want of power or authoritie but from want of judgement or will to give a right sentence And yet their censures also proceed And therefore the excommunications which my Adversary objects to me may neither import their faith of their infallibilitie nor yet wrong to all such as should gainsay what they had defined and determined if error and falsitie and contradiction to Scripture could be found in their definitions and determinations for first it is not fallibilitie of sentence that doth the wrong but falsity either by ignorance and so ignorantia in Judice reputatur pro dolo or else by wilfulnesse which formally makes the injurie because intended Secondly the excommunications proceed against the person for an outward act of obstinacie and not for a dissent of judgment for cogitationis poenam in nostro foro nemo luit so then there is no wrong to him that gainsays by excommunication for that simply he might keep his judgment And also thirdly the Judge though he judgeth not well yet may do well if he judgeth with competent knowledge and due integrity and therefore is it no injury if he does his best since God hath not thought fit on the behalfe of publick peace to disannull humane Judicatures for humane infirmities His Answer to my instance of the Bereans who searched the Scripture daily to see whether that which St. Paul said was true my Adversary doth referre to another Chapter We stay his leisure Whereas you adde fourthly Num. 6. that the decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto peace though their judgement cannot claime an undisputed assent yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference you teach by words what the deed of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid To this it is readily answered that Reformers may be glorious as to the generall effect though it 's possible for them to be extravagant in modo Sober businesses may be managed with too much heate Secondly whereas he supposeth that our glorious Reformers did notoriously gainsay the whole Church I deny it and if they did not gainesay the whole Church it doth not come home to his purpose for he is upon the authority of the whole Church They did gainsay the Roman Church but not the whole Church That which St. Jerom said in his Epistle to Evagrius is yet for our use si authoritas queritur orbis major est urbe if authority be lookt after the world is greater than a City which was also spoken in application to Rome And put case there were no sort of Christians that did not professe obedience to the Roman Church when those glorious Reformers did first appeare yet it cannot be rationally said by the Romanist that they did gainsay the whole Church because the Romanist doth take the root of his Church from the primitive times which those Reformers did not gainsay So then as we deny to them that they were all the whole Church when the Reformers did begin so if they had it would be nothing as to the gainsaying of the whole Church because the whole Church in their sence doth include all times and specially the primitive which they did not contradict And surely if the Romanist proves his Church by conformitie to the Primitive otherwise he hath the lesse reason for himself then must he interpretatively grant that there is more authority of the Primitive Church than of that present Roman And so then if the Reformers gainsaid not the primitive they gainsaid not the Catholick in the best part of it for time and that also which the present Roman doth most as they say depend upon Thirdly therefore we do not take our Religion from those Reformers as being worne into their words and therefore we do not impropriate Christianity by any singular persons we might take hints from them to consider those Doctrines which they preached and conferring them with Antiquity and Scripture we believe them to be Apostolicall and so is our Church by Tertullian's rule in his book of Prescriptions ch 32. In eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae those Churches that conspire in the faith are not lesse accounted Apostolical for the consanguinity of Doctrine Fourthly those Reformers even according to my Adversaries Principles did not oppose themselves to the authoritie of the whole Church because according to
him the authority of the Church is onely binding in a Council with the Popes consent and no Generall Council can be found which did establish the points of Doctrine and Discipline wherein we differ before those Reformers did shew themselves for the Trent Councill which also is not a generall Council was after their beginning as is known and it was called upon their occasion Fifthly as for our Reformation in England from the incroachments of the Court of Rome it was first made by men of the Roman faith So then my Adversary gets nought by this exception And if the Romanists object to us reformation in Doctrine against the Church as in the time of King Edward the sixth we reply as before that we did not oppose the Church Catholick we left the Roman as they left the Catholick Church The whole is greater than the part and therefore had we reason to leave them Omne reducitur ad principium which is a rule of Aquinas We are in Doctrine as the Church was in the times of the Apostles Our defence is in Tertullian in his book of Praesor 35. ch Posterior nostra res non est imo omnibus prior est c. Our cause is not more moderne but more antient than all This shall be the Testimony of truth every where obtaining the superiority Ab Apostolis utique non damnatur imo defenditur it is not condemned by the Apostles nay it is defended This shall be the indication of propriety for those who do not condemne it who have condemned whatsoever is extraneous do shew it to be theirs and therefore do defend it The second inconvenience which he urgeth of my Principles to draw me to his is none Secondly seeing that a Generall Council as you in your first paper confesse is the highest Court on earth to hear and determine controversies c. What then unlesse all were bound to confirme and subscribe to erroneous definitions and all Preachers were silenced and obliged not to open their mouths against their errors This he attributes to me as if I said it or my opinion did inferre it whereas neither is true Nay nor did he find in my papers that erroneous definitions of a Generall Council though the highest Court are to be accepted peaceably reverently and without disturbance namely so as to accept them in assent as true for that would be impossible they may be accepted and reverently and without disturbance as to peace in not opposing though not as to faith in submission of Judgement and because they may thus be accepted will it therefore follow that we are therefore bound to confirme and subscribe to erroneous definitions By no meanes I do not remember that I used the terme of accepting and yet if I did it might be construed in sensu commodo so as not to disturb the peace of the Church and quietly to endure the censure But there is a vast difference betwixt not opposing and conforming or subscribing For not to oppose is negative to conforme or subscribe is a positive act Not to oppose respects the definition as a publick act to conforme or subscribe respects it as true which I cannot do supposing it erroneous Not to oppose regards the Judgement of the Church as authoritative to conforme or subscribe regards the judgement of the Church as at least not erring in the definition And as for that he saies that by my confession all Preachers are silenced and obliged not to open their mouths against these errors I answer first by distinguishing of the matter of the error If the matter of the error be not great as not destroying an article of faith it might be better quietly to tollerate it than publickly to speak against it if the matter of the error be repugnant to an article of faith then we distinguish of the manner of speaking against it and we say we may soberly refer it to another general Council if any be in view If not we may speak the truth positively without opposition to the authoritie of the Church so as to vilify or contemn it Yea further if the Council be free and general it being so qualified it is not like to erre in any decree repugnant to a main article of faith and therefore the question about speaking against it is in this case well taken away And yet further admitting and not granting that such a Council should erre in defining that which is contrary to an article of faith yet must my Adversary have supposed by his principles that the truth contrary to this error hath been established by some other general Council or else according to him the Church hath not sufficiently provided how to settle us infallibly in matters of faith since according to him we must resolve our faith ultimately in the Decrees of Generall Councils and then Council will contradict Council and therefore will not a Council be a ground of faith because one may contradict another and also we may speak by vertue of the former Council against the error of the latter And therefore the whole Church of God is not in a pitifull case by any thing of what I said in reverence to Councils without absolute obedience But to be sure the Church would be in a pitifull case if indeed we were bound to receive intuitively all definitions of Councils in whatsoever matters for then should we be bound to submit our conscience to a Council against our conscience since it is not yet proved infallible and this makes for the inward act a contradiction for the outward hypocrisie And surely if that which is most hard is most easily broken as was said by one in the Trent Council then that he urgeth is easily answered for there is to be sure lesse danger in not speaking against that which is false as he would have me say than in yielding to all as infallibly true as he would have me believe And therefore that which follows returnes with more force upon my Adversary mutatis mutandis A pitifull thing it would be if the Church were bound to believe all definitions of a Council which are not yet proved nor ever will be not to be fallible and consequently some that may be false which being by command from the highest authoritie upon earth preached by so many and not so much as to be consiwered by one would needs increase to a wonderfull height Would any wise Law-maker proceed thus if they could helpe it as well as Christ could by continuing in his word written that infallibilitie which my Adversary hath confessed or must that it always had and shall have As for the infallibility of the Church for two thousand yeares before Scripture was written and that which this Church of Christ had before all the whole canon of the new Testament was finished which was for the first forty yeares of the Church This we have spoken to sufficiently before And this doth at most inferre upon a supposition that the Church was for
thirdly I can charge the Council of Trent with contradictions to it self and the Trent Council was a generall Council in the opinion of my Adversary therefore that grace is voluntarily received is their opinion and that yet we cannot know whether we are in state of grace includes a contradiction as if we did not know our own will what it does This absurdity was urged by Catharinus in the Trent Council Again not to speak of some of them who had voted the Edition vulgar to be authentick and yet did except against the interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sin pardoned in the History of the Council p. 207 there is a contradiction noted by the German Divines in the sixth session the seventh ch Where it is said of justice which every one receives according to his measure quam Spiritus Sanctus partitur singulis prout vult et secundum propriam cujusque dispositionem et cooperationem Which the Holy Ghost doth impart as he will and according to every ones disposition and cooperation If according to his will then not according to our disposition for then it is not as he will And so in the thirteenth session in the first ch it is said of the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus which although we can scarce expresse in words and yet in the fourth ch it is called of the Holy Catholick Church Transubstantiation convenienter et proprie appositly and properly And in the second Canon of the same session it saith of Transubstantiation quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem apellat which the Catholick Church cals most fitly Transubstantiation Was the Council of Trent infallibly assisted or assisted with infallibility in these contradictions and yet it may be these not all Num. 9. But number the ninth will make an end of our cause if a Rodomontado of my Adversary could do the deed Thus And when you ask again why you are charged as if you were opposed to the true Catholick Church I answer Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church and consequently he had such a Church when your Reformation as you call it began But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many and important points of Doctrine not onely the Roman but all other Churches upon earth Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points And in plain English I tell you this Argument which is in lawfull form is unanswerable Ans So then But is this Achilles Is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas if we come near him it is but bombast First we deny it in the lawfulnesse of the forme which he asserts for it is concluding in the second figure affirmatively and in this regard onely it is unanswerable for it is not to be answered for want of forme But yet secondly lest they should think it is unanswerable in the matter we answer to the major first by distinguishing if he takes the true Catholick Church as in the Apostles Creed he commits an equivocation for so it cannot be taken in the minor because we have in the minor the Roman Church and other Churches now the Roman is a visible Church he means and so he means the other Churches to be visible for we cannot properly oppose he will think any but visible Churches but in the Creed is meant the Church invisible which is the object of faith If he takes it for the true Catholick Church visible as always perspicuous and flourishing in visibility in all the parts of it it is denied that the Church Catholick is so visible and therefore we deny the major and need not say any thing to the minor and yet also we deny the minor because if it were not so visible we could not be said to oppose it And he cannot prove that we opposed all other Churches because they were not in his sense visible and therefore how can he say that we opposed all other Churches since if they were visible in the parts to some that were Neighbors yet not visible to the world generally Was the Church lesse the Church in the Primitive times when it wanted candles to be seen in the night or the seven thousand which Elijah did not know of lesse belonging to the Church of the Jews because they did not openly professe the true Religion How then can it be said rationally that we opposed all Churches for how could he or any one man under Heaven know all the Churches of the world then Yea thirdly in how many and important points did the Reformers oppose the Greek Church and the Waldenses who as the Author of the History of the Trent Council sayes had forsaken the Church of Rome then four hundred years before in his fifth book Yea fourthly the major proposition supposeth for all times and places doth it not for so the Catholick Church is properly taken as including all times and places and so we deny the minor we did not oppose all Churches of all times Dato non concesso that we did at the Reformation oppose not onely the Roman but all other Churches yet did we not oppose all Churches or the Roman of the Primitive times and therefore did we not oppose the Catholick Church Yea yet fifthly we distinguish dissent from opposition Although opposition includes a difference yet every difference doth not include an opposition for then St. Cyprian had opposed the Church in differing from it upon the point of Rebaptization And if it be said that the point of Rebaptization was not then defined by the Church we say that yet this consideration doth not make every difference to have in it the nature of opposition for then though St. Cyprian had not opposed the authority of a Church in a Council yet had he opposed the authoritie of the Church which then did bind him more than the Trent Council doth us And that St. Cyprian did so oppose the Church was not then held by the Church Catholick Sixthly to return the Argument upon them Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church and consequently he had such a Church when their deformation went on in the Trent Council but they then in very many and important points of Doctrine did oppose all true Catholicks therefore without doubt they opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points as in communion under one kind in Transubstantiation in Purgatorie in the merit of works in seven Sacraments of proper name in invocation and religious worship of the Saints in Images Yea the Roman Church hath more formally opposed the whole Church because in the Trent Council it would have the Roman Church to be the Catholick which supposeth that all Christians must strike sail to them or else they are sunke Seventhly we tell him wherein the Romanist hath divided from the whole Church but he doth not tell us
the History of the Councill of Trent and observeth so long deliberations so many interposals so hot disputes such changes so many notable Contradictions of many of them say that all Controversies were there infallibly ended As Tertullian to the Heathens appello Conscientiam vestram I appeale unto their Consciences when they are preparing for death whether Cardinall or Canonist or Pope dare affirme it This for the major As to the assumption I also may distinguish if he takes texts of Scripture as principles in order to Conclusions I hold them onely infallible If he takes texts of Scripture as in terms exclusively to Conclusions immediate so I do not hold them onely infallible but also the Conclusions which do naturally descend by prime resultance from them Now a Council may apply principles of Scripture which may resolve a question unto faith but this is not done always and absolutely and when it is done it is done by vertue of Scripture They do not determine things by Divine inspiration but by humane disquisition as was distinguished in the Trent Council and therefore may they misse possibly in their discourse Yea to the assumption I also say though I hold texts of Scripture onely infallible yet I onely do not hold them so but the Fathers as before the Nicene Doctors as before yea and some in the Trent Councill too as we have noted And again if any thing else be infallible then a Council if a Council then according to them the Council of Trent if the Council of Trent why did they not determine of Bishops whether they were jure Divino or not and why did they not determine of Residence whether jure Divino or not If they could not how were they infallible If they would not how were they faithfull Again If you be necessitated as you say to extend the texts of Christs assistance to his Church unto infallibility for the ending of controversies otherwise we shall remaine disputing without end or possibility of end and onely for this as he seems to meane then there is no necessity at all And the consequence is cleare without his absurdity upon the former distinction because plain things need not come into question and points of question need not an infallible decision Num. 13. In the thirteenth number I have two things chiefly to consider first his charge of impertinency in my declaring the difficulty of assent by the unanimous consent of all the Fathers of all ages every where Secondly I am to consider his Apology for waving the authority of the Fathers in this debate He asks me as to the first What connexion hath the perusall of every judgment of every Father of every age every where with that obligation which I put of following these Canons of Councils which make to the decision of those most known Controversies about which we contend Ans First there is a connexion of this discourse with the ground of that about which we are conversant namely the authority of the Church For what authority can they produce for the distinction of the Church from no Church in any profession or from a false Church but the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church What Council did make themselves by their own authority to be indeed Christians the first Councils were not antecedent to Christianity but Christianity to them So then either the Church is distinguished by the consent of the Fathers or by Scripture If by Scripture then is it the first principle and the last and a primo ad ultimum we have no more dependence upon the Church than from Scripture If by the consent of the Fathers then I spake before to good purpose though my Adversary said it was nothing to our purpose For the Councils we must be ruled by absolutely as he supposeth are the Councils of the Church are they not well then if the Church be distinguished by the unanimous consent of the Fathers which I suppose they will not deny then the discourse about the consent of the Fathers was not eccentricall to the point in hand Let them remember the rule of Aquinas Omne reducitur ad principium Secondly it beares connexion with the question about Councils per modum regulae as the rule by which they goe in their definitions Either they went by Scripture or by the consent of the Fathers If they went by Scripture then by my Adversaries opinion we must goe that way because we are to be infallibly directed by them If by the joint consent of the Fathers then surely our discourse was very proper and pertinent or if they will not have the Fathers consent to be considered so much as contradistinguished unto Scripture because as the Legates and Presidents of the Trent Council said the holy Fathers have no other grounds but Scripture yet the consent of the Fathers is distinguished from the object upon which their consent is terminated So then as for the sense of Scripture either the Councils went by the rule of the Father's joint interpretation or not if by it then we have our purpose of defending the reasonablenesse of our speech about the Fathers If not then by the common rules of understanding the sense of Scripture and then why should we not goe that way for our resolution which they go So that my Adversary needed not to have given me an admonition of holding close to the matter And yet I take that admonition very kindely that my Adversaries might be obedient to their own law That which he saies Is the judgement of every Father of every age the judgement of a Generall Council is nothing For though it be not the judgement of the Councill in recto yet I hope it was in causa not that they were determined by the judgement of one separately from the rest but because it is supposed by my Adversaries that they all agreed If they say they did not then let my Adversaries agree it as well as they can with the rest of their Church who stand as much for our obedience to them as to any other authority of the Church And whether they hold the Fathers as Judges or as witnesses it is all one to me because I speak of their authority in general So then if the judgement of every Father of every age disjunctively or distributively be not the judgement of a general Council which my Antagonists think unreasonable yet conjunctively and complexively I hope it is or should be according to their common principles And if they lie at catch upon the ambiguity of the termes of every Father of every age they commit a plain fallacy in distribution and also are peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for if they meane every Father of every age distributively it doth not contradict me who speake of them in consent And now shall I come to the second taske to hunt out the reason why he would not deale with me in this Controversie by the authority of the Fathers He saies
thus Since you bring the authority of Councils to a little more than nothing and again the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing in order to the ending of Controversies this your violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers will give me leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the begining appeared possible for it is evident out of your own words that it is to no end to deale with you out of Fathers and I am resolved to deale with no body but to some end I will therefore humor you in this and I will lay aside all that might hereafter be said concerning the opinion of Fathers Ans Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem My Adversary is so curious in this apology of his that he is to be suspected I gave no such occasion but he takes it against the use of the Fathers in this point I am not guilty in any sober mans judgement of any privative disrepect unto them I do not bring the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing what is due justly either to Councils or to Fathers I do willingly give But because infallibility is not granted therefore am I charged with disrespect This is a fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that denies them this doth not deny unto them such reverence as is equal And for the Fathers I have not waved any testimony which hath been produced against our cause I have not said as he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea I have used the same Argument against my Adversaries in triumphum Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he in his Rhetorick but I have said nothing which is not conformable to the word of God to the consent of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church but because I will not make the word of the Fathers and of the Doctors equall to the infallible word of God therefore am I not reasonably accused of slighting the Fathers and Doctors of the antient Church But this was necessary for my Adversary to colour his refusall of answering to those Fathers I brought against him and to the answers which I gave to the testimonies of the Fathers which he brought against me So difficulty is sometimes by Sophisters construed for impertinency By this Argument I must say nothing proper but what may be easily answered But it had been more ingenuous first to have exhibited solid authorities out of the Fathers of the Primitive antiquity or at least to have given a sufficient answer to my refutation of what use he made of those he quoted against me and then to have laid aside the urging of the Fathers upon my account of Refusall of them onely as infallible Judges To gather up then my exceptions against this part of his apologie I say first I do not either in terms or by consequence bring Councils to a little more than nothing nor the authority of the Fathers to little lesse than nothing in order to the ending of Controversies I allow them to be of great use in his terms in order to the ending of Controversies There may be an ordinability of them towards or in order to this end without infallibility in them they may finde out and give us the infallible sense of Scripture but we cannot take it so upon their word their authority is moving but not cogent of our assent Secondly I except against those words wherein he imputes to me a violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers This I deny Neither in termes nor by discourse can they finde such words or sense from me I have used their own weapon against them I have answered their objections from them I renew the provocation and challenge which Bishop Jewell and others of our Divines have made to them to shew if they can any notable part yea any two yea any one of the ancient Fathers that clearly and constantly hath professed the points wherein we differ from them And if the Fathers had been for them why did they corrupt some passages of the Fathers which spoke against them which they have not yet cleared themselves of Yea thirdly whereas he says my refusall of the Fathers will give him leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the beginning I say not insisting here upon the impropriety of a Treatise if it be no more as to my satisfaction or of the terme if it be more that there had been rome enough for all the Fathers authorities he could produce for himself and also for all that he could say to my answers about their testimonies without Theremaking his Treatise so long if he had left out impertinences and references and repetitions Therefore hath my Adversary taken more liberty than I afforded him in his refusall of dealing with the Fathers yet not more liberty than was necessary for him lest he should be in necessity to answer what answers I made to his former testimonies of them and also to what testimonies I have produced against him And I finde him wary lest I should make this advantage of his resolution to wave the Fathers He would make it to be no design but a rationall purpose therefore he goes on But doe not think that I doe this as if what you here said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me or as if what you say were in the least degree hard to be answered for you yourself cannot be ignorant that we alleadge plenty of the Fathers against you as are confessed by your selves to have been the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church Ans The rule is good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And surely he is not damned that doth not believe that all which is said by men on their own behalf is true But secondly they do not produce many testimonies of the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church namely not of the first 300 years nay nor of the first 600 years others are Postnates and have not the honor of Primitive Antiquity Yea some they name as testimonies for them were not Fathers And some works they cite for them which are falsely ascribed to true Fathers as several of our Writers have demonstrated even with the Confession of some of their Church Thirdly whereas he saies Do not think that I do this as if what you have said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me he wrongs me with a fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he would have men believe that I spake against the authority of the Fathers simply because I spake against their authority as absolutely convictive of the understanding in point of truth And also whereas he saies it did not find credit with him I am of his opinion for certainly little is like to be believed by the Pontificians that is against them But after this manner his Treatise might soon be answered it finds not credit with me One blot would serve for all the Treatise Fourthly what
he saies we must resolve our faith in the authority of a Council and if it hath defined that the sense how came they to have authority to define this to be the sense of the place If not clear to this purpose how came they to divine infallibly this sense for the Scripture according to them did not appear to have this sense without a Council then who gave authority to the first Council to give this infallibly to be the sense If clear then have we no such necessity of an infallible Judge for umpiring of litigant senses Thirdly Tell it to the Church ex vi authoritatis as to teach not ex vi infallibilitatis in teaching in regard of authority as to persons not infallibility as to truth Representatively in the office not absolutely in the matter We are to hear them as authorized to teach but not simply to believe them as if they were assisted not to err He that is appointed by Christ and doth say that which is false is not to be believed because if he saies that which is true it is not to be accounted true because he saies so but he is to be accounted as to speak true because it is so yea they may know that that text was applied by Christ as to censure in points of trespasse not to obedience in points of faith Not that Scripture alone by her self endeth all our differences c. Ans Who ever said so Who is his Adversary It were easie to have the victory without an Adversary if possible No Nor the Church alone by her self But we say also the Scripture doth not formally end any as they would have a living Judge and yet is not deficient in necessaries for by proposing plainly what is necessary it concludes necessarily against the necessitie of a living Judge infallible What is necessary more than to believe that which is necessary And therefore no need of traditions and what more plain than that there is no need of an infallible Judge as to salvation since what is necessary is plainly delivered in Scripture It is sufficient in the matter for necessaries and it is clear enough in the manner as to points of faith understood signanter And would we be ruled by Scripture there would be fewer Controversies in the Church and of the Church And were not their Church a party for it self it would give all to Scripture The interess of the Church hath brought in traditions not for salvation but for its authority And the Scripture must not clearly have delivered all points necessary because then what reputation would be given to the authority and magnificence of the Church But we are invited much to the third chap. and expectation is raised wherein he saies when I shall have fully set down the state of the question you shall find all that you add in this place presently answered Ans This he sayes should be done before it be said If he will prove that we must err in point of salvation without obedience to their judge If he will prove that all error is damnative and if he can prove that their Church or the Church hath not erred yea cannot err then we will excuse him for repetitions in the third chap. for he cannot come off handsomely with answering in a third chap. what was said in a former more fully unlesse he saies much more to what is said than what he hath yet said But we do not prejudice his Judge CHAP. III Shewing that since Scripture alone doth sufficiently propose all things necessary to salvation there is no need of a living Judge infallible HEre he saies at first Num. 1. You deliver your opinion in your answer to my third Num. p. 12. thus And then he tels me my opinion of which he says no proof was given by you untill you came to this present place For proof he hath had as much as could reasonably be required and more I suppose than he desired But I was to follow him and therefore he was not to accuse me And he might then have begun with the proof if he would have made short work He then prepares himself to reinforce the combate And therefore he saies And first I will take leave to state this question a little more fully and distinctly Ans He useth his own right if he will state the question more fully and distinctly and it is right to do so All good discourse begins with a definition and all regular disputes with the state of the question And it will be a favor to me if he does it well for we shall have done the sooner And so he ends his first number Your assertion then is Num. 2. that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Ans Yes this is my assertion And I am not ashamed of it yet for it is not mine alone but the Scriptur's and St. Austin's and others as he hath heard before In this assertion there be two things which needfull and distinct declaration the first is to declare these words necessary to salvation the second to declare those words plainly set down Ans Content let him be as good as his word onely let him take care he doth not as some he knew confound that which is to be distinguished and distinguish that which is to be confounded So let him turn his answering to what I said against his assertion into an opposition of mine And first concerning those words necessary to salvation they must of necessity be understood so that all things are plainly set down in Scripture which are necessary first to the universall Church as it is a Community Secondly all things necessary to all states and degrees that must needs be in this Community Thirdly all things necessary to every person bound to be of this Community Ans This way he thought to destroy my assertion as Mr. Cressy does to destroy the assertion of Mr. Chillingworth but it will not do For here is he faulty in confounding that which is to be distinguished He should have distinguished betwixt necessaries to salvation and necessaries to the universall Church as it is a Community though all that is necessary to salvation is necessary to the Church taken confusely of the persons yet whatsoever is necessary to the universall Church as a Community is not necessary to salvation for then before there was a competent aggregation in a Community there was no possibility of salvation And that Community is to be saved by the holding of things necessary is it not Yes he would say then this Community doth not come in to integrate things necessary to salvation and if not then those things which are necessary to this Community doth not come in neither Then he should have done well secondly to have distinguished betwixt a Church in its being and in its well being All things are not necessary to the being of a Church which are requisite to the bene esse of it Now salvation may
13. And you must pardon me if I say that which he had said before But how can I take it for full satisfaction that before I am referred to the third chap. and here we are sent back again to the place from whence he came This if we might say so is plain bo peep He hath my answer there which is yet good The Scriptures thus Profaned and by such interpretations truely discanoned as I may say are rather subject to that effect which St. Pauls Epistles according to St. Peter had with some men i. e. they are subject to be depraved by them to the perdition of their Interpreters But what is this to us And yet will they say because men are subject to deprave the Scripture therefore is Scripture subject to be depraved And after the same manner that the Scriptures may be discanoned by such interpretations so may also the Decrees of the Councils if men have a greater reverence of the Decrees and Canons of Councils than of the Holy Scriptures And if Scripture be discanoned by a false sense then Scripture is canoned by a true and so then by giving a true sense of Scripture the Church should make Scripture which yet is denied by the learnedst Pontificians And also if we must put upon Scripture the corruptions of men as he doth by a fallacy of accident then have we lesse reason to esteem of Scripture by the authority of men Whereby the way you are again to take notice c. unto it was then true To that which he says here we answer again since he will have it so that the act of wresting Scripture is damnative not by the error of the understanding but by the perversenesse of the will whatsoever the matter of that Scripture be whether necessary or not And he does well to conclude for us Consequently these places did not according to your Doctrine contain points necessary to salvation namely because they were hard It is right yet not because they were wrested they did not contain points necessary for points necessary may possibly also be wrested but rather because they were hard to be understood Points hard to be understood are more like to be wrested than points wrested hard to be understood And the perdition follows not upon the ignorance of the things not necessary but upon the depravation of the texts And therefore our allowance of some liberty of Interpretations even in hard points may not easily prove damnable First the liberty is not so much allowed as necessary Secondly the liberty is not damnable but the abuse Thirdly the allowance is not so much to hard points but things plain where the Lamb may wade Fourthly it is necessary that the people should know that which is necessary to be known it is accidentall that they should mis-interpret the text which doth not contain that which is necessary Now shall he be deprived of that which is necessary upon a contingent inconvenience which also if he hath a sober mind cannot betide him Felix periculum in necessariis Sapiens non curat de accidentalibus It was then true which I told you in another place that though the Scripture be a most right rule yet it is very commonly so crookedly applied that we stand in need of a better security of the Interpretation of it in which the very kernell of the letter doth consist than we have of the Interpretation finally stood unto made by the private judgement of our own discretion Ans My Adversary by his fallacy of accident is falling upon another question namely this whether it be not dangerous to let men have the free use of Scripture which although it seems to conclude for him yet doth not punctually conclude against me in the particular point of Controversie namely whether the Srcipture doth plainly deliver things necessary As it is said by some that some Hares when they are hotly hunted will squart before another hare to put the Hunters upon a new chase so he would start as it were another question to put me off from the prosecution of the right question But secondly we will follow this also and we say that he here grants as much as which extensively concludes against him For if the Scripture be a most right rule as he confesseth then are we to be ruled by it Let me ask why did God give us this most right rule what to be laid aside because by some it is crookedly aplied Is this a good consequence Because the authority of the Church hath been urged by Hereticks therefore we should not urge the Authority of the Church Because the Gospel doth harm to some by their corruption therefore we should not have it preached Because Dudithius the Bishop of five Churches said of the Trent Council that the Holy Ghost had nothing to do with the Council and that he was carried in a Carriers Portmantle to Trent and that the Spirit of God which moved upon the waters could not come to Trent because the waters were up therefore we must not make use of Councils for the ending of Controversies Such consequences his argumentation affords let them own these or retract their reasoning Thirdly where shall we have a better security of the Interpretation of it Let them first secure a better security of the Interpretation of it It is true if the Interpretation of a Council be compared with the Interpretation of a private judgement it is probable that the Interpretation of a Council should be better but the question is whether we can have security for faith by the Interpretation of a Council This we deny since Councils may possibly erre in the Interpretations of some texts and particularly the Trent Council did err in some Interpretations as some of the Divines therein have signified And then fourthly he doth freely or inconsiderately mistake our cause in the allowances we give to the private judgement of discretion for we do not say that we should finally stand to our private Interpretation either as to determine others thereby or to prefer our own Interpretation before that publick judgement of a Council but this we say that the sense of Scripture cannot be obtruded to us as to believe it upon their account unlesse we see good reason out of Scripture for it The private judgement of discretion hath not it self in this case as in a contrary competition to the Council but hath it self negatively and is upon the suspense till it sees Gods word for it But he knew my answer as it seems I know your answer is that it is accidentall to this rule to be misapplied and this cannot infringe the authority of Scripture Yes this was in substance my answer before But now it will not serve as my Adversary would perswade me by his distinction It doth not indeed infringe the authority of Scripture useth as God would have it used with due submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church Otherwise c. unto neither Ans He means
say that we do not give so much scope to such poor creatures as ignorant men are They have but their rational liberty to find the way of Salvation in the Scripture unto which it was appointed in things doubtfull we say they should consult with learned men We do not invest them with so ample a faculty to interpret it without any interiour submission to the Church They take their own freedom and right to see reason why they should submit to the Church either as clearing the sense or proving its infallibility They are bound to see good reason why they differ from the Church but they are not simply bound to believe upon whatsoever reason the Church gives or none Neither doe we say that he may stand out in his judgement against the Interpretations of whole Generall Councils not stand out in an heady opposition but yet may say Salvo meliori judicio that he must see how what they define be correspondent to Scripture in points of belief Secondly how shall poor ignorant creatures know what severall Generall Councils have agreed in since some have differed from others as hath been seen They must know by infallibility that the Councils have defined this and then that they have defined it infallibly And so they put poor ignorant men upon greater difficulties And if it be said that the ignorant men should believe the Church that such a point is defined by the Councils it is answered no we are to believe according to my Adversary the Church onely as it is infallible and that is in Councils confirmed by the Pope Thirdly if the Church be the way for poor ignorant creatures because of the difficulty pretended of Scripture yet as to learned men it seems it is not necessary that it should be the way to them because to them being so learned the Scripture is not so difficult and therefore upon the matter we may conclude that it is more reasonable that ignorant men should goe the way which learned men should goe in than that learned men should go the way which fools and ignorant men go in So then that which my Adversary says after immediately needs not be traduced And yet this very self same man is wisely by you sent to the Minister Any Minister of the Gospell say you but I must not say any Generall Council is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people to their happinesse This and more of this kind he hath with some undue reflexion upon his Adversary with an Ironie but if all be weighed and the reflexion not weighed all will come to not much For first I never gave him occasion to think that I preferred the judgement of a single Minister before the judgement of a generall Council But that which I said if he would have taken notice of it doth infer a great deal of respect to the faculty of a generall Council For if I say that a single Minister may competently inform us of so much as is necessary then much more a generall Council And this is implyed in the words of him that doth give a due respect to Councils Secondly he might also have remembred that this use of a Minister of the Gospel was spoken upon occasion of the text or may be grounded thereupon that the Scriptures were able to make wise unto salvation therefore upon the place it is to be restrained to things necessary to salvation which doe not need so judicious a debate of a Generall Council because there is no such difficulty in the sense of them If I say that my Adversary could have told us that the authority of the Church is in the Pope and a Council do I prefer my Adversary before a Pope and a Council or a Council and a Pope for it is a mighty question which is superior since they have no mind to be ruled by the Council of Constance And if I say my Adversary could have satisfied such a scruple about the number of Orders do I say that my Adversary could have assoyled all doubts in Theology as well as a generall Council I did not speak of a Minister exclusively to a Council in their judgement and authority but exclusively rather to a Council in the necessity thereof And this sets the accent upon the Council ex abundanti Therefore he doth not drive the compare ad idem for I spoke of the ability of a Minister as to things necessary which are sufficiently plain of themselves he brings me in speaking of a Minister as to things of question which are not necessary and this therefore is not logically done for comparation must be in the same kind Now surely a Minister of the Gospel may as well inform us as to things necessary which are sufficiently plain as a Generall Council in things of Controversie which are not necessary to be believed on either part For suppose the judgement of the Church were not divided from the word of God but we take the word from the Church as Stapleton says in his Epistle dedicatory of his Doctrinall principles and yet herein he seems to beg the question whether the Scripture was intended onely to bear that sense which the Church gives of it yet as to things sufficiently plain there is no need of consulting the judgement of the Church because they are such then as they will say that the definitions of a Councill are so plain that any Priest of theirs may instruct the people in the rignt sense so the Scriptures are so plainly delivered as to things necessary that any Minister of the Gospell may make a man wise unto salvation by them And we may well say that the Scriptures were inspired for this purpose And therefore have I yielded him what he desired yet it being so ingenuous I shall also rehearse it Do but allow me this to the Church that it can competently through the Scripture direct the people to their happinesse and we will not contend with you whether this competent direction shall be called an infallible direction or not Ans I could be content to stand to such an issue and to compromise the dispute unto such terms For we can freely allow unto him all this even pendente lite And we have formerly allowed as much therefore have they either no mind to accept of our respect to the Church or my Adversary of his own accord is coming to move moderation that which he says here hath three importments first an authority and faculty of the Church which we have granted Secondly that this authority in the exercise of its faculty is directive through the Scriptures Thirdly that this direction to the people is competent to their happiness Only let it be provided that the Church its direction of the people by the Scriptures doth not derogate from the peoples use of the Scripture thus we can afford all this for this is no way contradictory to our proposition that the Scripture doth contain plainly all things necessary to salvation or
make any answer to the reason whereof I have given before And as to his imagination that if the Fathers had perswaded the Heathens to believe the Scripture by its own light they would have scoffed at them we have answered before that we use not such an argument to perswade others but this we have for our private assurance as we cannot assent to Christian Doctrine but by the Spirit for no man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the Spirit so no man can give a Divine assent to the books of Scripture but by the Spirit as Stapleton hath affirmed therefore though we cannot argue to others the reception of these books as Canonical by that inward testimony of the Spirit which we cannot make known to others infallibly yet surely we may be able to prove to the Pontificians at least that there is such a testimony of the Spirit of God in thesi they will not argue from the deniall of it in Hypothesi to private Christians to the deniall of it in universali for they say that the Church which is to commend these books to private men if they think they are to be commended to them is assured that they are books Divine and Canonical by the testimony of the Spirit so that upon the point we agree for the kind of assurance and they come to us for the last assurance onely they will have us to have this assurance mediately by the Church So the whole ratio and account of a Papist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 delivered by Stapleton Dei verbum per os Ecclesiae intelligimus both the faith of the Scripture and faith out of the Scripture we must have it from the Church And yet the Church Representative must have it severally from the Spirit immediately too and so there is lesse difference And yet there was no Council or Pope surely for the first three hundred years in which time notwithstanding men did believe the Scriptures to be the word of God and then no difference betwixt them and us in the perswasion of Canonical Scripture Secondly Dato non concesso that there had been nothing said by the Fathers touching this point which yet as before is not so yet cannot we argue from them negatively as we doe from Scripture because even the chief of their Doctors will say that the Scripture is a rule of faith and the principal one too some but so is not the consent of the Fathers with the Papists in communi for they will differ from them as they did in the Trent Council and specially with my Adversary who hath before contradistinguished the Fathers to the authority of the Church So then as we cannot solidly reason from their use of arguing from the Church that there is no better assurance absolutely so neither could we from the silence of the testimony of the Spirit argue that we must only depend upon the Church But thirdly he might have observed in St. Austin the reason why they urged the authority of the Church for the confirmation of Scripture in lib. de utilitate credendi cap. 5. Scripturae populariter accusari possunt non possunt populariter defendi namely otherwise than by the Church yet he also doth suffragate for us in his book against the Epistle of the Manich. Non jam hominibus sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante atque illuminante not men now but God himself confirming and inlightning our mind within And for triumph Canisius and Hosius besides Stapleton of the Romanists are brought in with their testimonies to the same purpose that we have a greater testimony of the Scriptures than the Church Dr. Whit. De Eccles p. 254. namely that of the Spirit of God As for that which follows Really I think if the Doctors of the Primitive Church had told the Heathens c. to the end of the Paragraph how little doth it weigh with us Really we may think that they think any thing will serve to make up weight We can use to such the same argument with the Fathers without any derogation to our cause And secondly they did not plead the Church upon the Roman account and therefore if they will have all they have no share But to serve them in kind Did the Doctors of the primitive Church tell the Heathens of our ordinary Pastor which should be the Plenipotentiarie of the whole Church Did they tell them of Transubstantiation And had they told them that these things were as credible by the authority of the Church as by a light as evident as the Sun the Heathens surely would have scoffed at them for saying them to be so visible And again he argues from the visibility to the actuall sight not considering what is requisit in the subject namely facultie and will This number is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 25. the argument is this there are as many raies observable in the book of Toby or Judith as in so many chapters of the book of Numbers Ans Would any one have expected so bold an assertion But then why were these accounted amongst the rest Deuterocanonical why were they not accounted by Jerom by Eusebius by Cyril of Jerusalem as before equal to the books Canonical as to confirmation of faith Why rejected by so many learned men as Doctor White in his Defence of the true way doth cite p. 32 Well And how came the first Christian to distinguish them Not by the authority of the Church then by some difference in the books by the Divine illumination For secondly the Church hath not as to the Canonicallnesse of books vim operativam but vim declarativam as at most even according to their greatest Doctors and therefore this they do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ex officio then either they were not declared in the primitive times or were declared by some discrimination from the books if they were not declared there is no necessity now neither that they should be declared if they were declared upon reason of the difference then there are not such raies in the books Apocryphall Thirdly if these books were allways to be received as Canonicall then the Church in the Primitive times erred in not receiving them If they be not to be received as Canonicall as they were not received so then the Roman Church erreth in the receiving them for such And this Dilemma is destructive of their infallibility Num. 26. A sixth argument is drawn from a possibility of some omission of some words in Scripture as the little word not to an impossibility of my discerning this omission only by the reading of Scripture Ans The Scripture is either corrupted or not If the former how can we trust the Church of Rome which pretends it self the Keeper if not the argument is void and Bellarmin holds the latter Secondly Conditio impossibilis facit negativam if it were false it could not be the word of God therefore since we both acknowledge it to
be the word of God we cannot ut sic suppose such an omission Thirdly if there were a not left out how should the Church have power to put it in For then the Church would have power to contradict the old reading and so to make Scripture if the Church had not power then it would be as uncertain as we Fourthly if there were a not left out in things substantiall and necessary it would likely make a contradiction to other texts where the same matter is delivered for it would be very hard to find ony point necessary to be one of those which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now since we both conclude no Contradiction in Scripture for then it would not be true and infallible we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conclude that there is no such omission Fifthly if we may he perswaded by the Spirit of God that the Scripture is the word of God then consequently we are assured that there is not such an omission but verum prius ergo posterius Here we have a seventh argument Num. 27. Luther who had the Spirit as well as I if not in a larger measure contradicts me in the Canonicallnesse of the Epistle of St. James and in ths book of the Revelation therefore this ground of believing Canonicall books is fallible since in a Contradiction one part must be false And thus he thought to pay me in kind for my disputing the error of Councils by a Contradiction which he says If you could prove you should prove that Councils are fallible Ans As for the Metaphysicall Law in Contradictions that one part must be false if we hold any thing certainly true we differ not And concerning the proof of Councils to be fallible by ones contradicting another it comes in here but collaterally this is not sedes materiae and therefore as he brings it in we may passe it with a light foot In point of fact they will confesse they may as well contradict one another as err and therefore we will not now insist upon the contradiction of the Council of Chalcedon and the second of Nice about the Epistle of Ibas But did not the Council of Francford contradict the second Council of Nice in point of worship of Images But also to give them exemplum utile the Council of Laodicea rejected the Apocryphal books as not Canonical the Council of Trent receives them for such Ses 4. So one contradicts another And if it be said that the Council of Laodicea was not Generall we answer that it was as Generall as the Council of Carthage which he urgeth below for he book of Maccabees for this was but provinciall by Carranza's confession But then secondly we say though it was but provinciall yet was it established by the sixth Generall Council as Carranza also confesseth and then consequently the sixth Generall Council and the Council of Trent do contradict And now as to the contradiction betwixt Luther and me upon the case I say first that the argument is not yet valid to his purpose the objects have themselves equally to all but all have themselves not equally to objects and yet though Luther had a greater measure of the Spirit than I it doth not follow neverthelesse that this book could not be seen to be Divine by the Divine illumination no more than it doth follow that because St. Peter had a greater measure of the grace of God's Spirit he could not deny his Master As a larger measure of grace doth not exclude all possibility of sin so neither doth a larger measure of the Spirit exclude all possibility of error Secondly was not the Church of Christ as quick-sighted by the help of the Spirit before the Council of Carthage as then And yet it seems by my Adversary that the Church did not clearly propose the book of Maccabees to be Canonicall before that time and therefore non-acknowledgement in some doth not prove against possibility of certain knowledge And thus if Luther's exceptions against those books were always continued in the height of termes which yet is denied he gaines nothing against us since also Thirdly we return the Adversary his own argument if the determinations of the Church be so clear how doe they contradict one another Next follows the instance he puts of those two prime Doctors of the Church St. Jerom and St. Austin about the book of Maccabees St. Austin as he would have us think held it for Canonicall St. Jerom not So then here is Father against Father and therefore consent of Fathers in all points is scarce a possible argument But the cause he says of this difference was not our ground this we have spoken to but because it was not clearly proposed in St. Jerom's time by the Church But the third Council of Carthage in which St Austin was present declared these books to be God's word and so St. Austin held these books infallibly to be God's word c. Ans Not to passe it that St. Austin might be more likely to swallow the account of these books because he had not skill in the Hebrew Canon as the Greek he learned late And not to passe it that my Adversary names not the place where St. Austin held these books to be God's word and infallibly too it may be he held them so as the book of Wisedom of which before but my Adversary speaks one word here ingenuously that the third Council of Carthage did but declare well and the Council of Laodicea did before declare the contrary This was before St. Jerom's time being celebrated in the year 364. as Carranza reckons and the reason then why St. Jerom refused that book was not because he had not seen this Council of Carthage as my Adversary says but because he had read the Canons of the Council of Laodicea for this was of equall authority to that of Carthage being both provinciall and both confirmed by the sixth Generall Council as the former Author observes and if so then by the way the same Generall Council was guilty of a Contradiction as establishing the Canons of those Councils which in this point about the books of the Maccabees are repugnant one to other Again if the authority of the Council of Carthage did bind St. Austin who subscribed it as to the acknowledgement of these books for Canonicall then the twenty sixth Canon of the same Council doth equally bind That the Bishop of the first sea should not be called the Prince of the Priests or the supreme Priest or any such thing but onely the Bishop of the first sea Therefore let the Roman either not urge this Council against us or receive it against himself Nay lastly we can better answer the Canon against us than Carranza answers the Canon against Rome's Supremacy For the reason which my Adversary gives out of the Canon for reception of those books doth not oblige to receive them equally to Canonical books namely because we have received from our Fathers that
for Iudith Then one of the Councils must erre either that which established Iudith and not the rest or that which established Iudith and the rest namely that of Carthage wihch my Adversary saies S. Ierome had not seen One thought them not fit to be declared Canonical another thought them to be fit And is not this a contradiction of Council to Council Again Bellarmine saies that S. Ierome did afterwards receive the Book of Iudith Now I desire to know how much time that after doth suppose for If S. Ierome had received it presently we should have heard of it if much time after as it might be by the words then the Authority of the Church seemed not to S. Ierome so intuitively to oblige as the Antagonists suppose Had he thought the Church infallible would he have stuck at it Do not the Romanists know the rule in Tacitus Qui de liberant desciverunt They which deliberate have already revolted What he would have me note by the way that the Fathers of the Council of Carthage did acknowledge the Maccabees for true Scripture it is no difficult matter to give account to For first he goes upon a false Principle that if those Fathers were of our Religion then we must make them agree with us in this prime Principle upon which we receive all Scripture as Gods infallible Word This is not so for my living Adversaries may know that one who hath defended our Religion hath been quoted to me as differing from me in this point and that is Mr. Chillingworth Though all that are of this opinion are like to be of our Religion yet all of our Religion it seems are not of this opinion For indeed the Protestant Religion supposeth the Scripture to be the Word of God as a common Principle and therefore also there should not have been any contestation about this point if our Adversaries had not been resolved to question all Religion which is not properly theirs Secondly Therefore they might have received Scripture upon the Authority of Universal Tradition which also abstracts from the Roman Impropriation Thirdly Since they had not Universal Tradition for those Apochryphal Bookes as it seems by S. Ierom we cannot neither upon that account be ingaged to receive them as Canonical Fourthly Since they did not receive them by Universal Tradition as appears also by Cyril of Ierusalem as before and since they are not to be discerned by their own light as my Adversaries will confess nor by the conditions of the matter what reason shall we have to receive them For if they say the Council was assisted by the Holy Ghost we ask what was it assisted as a Council or as such a Council if as a Council why had not the other the same Assistance if as such a Council how shall we discern which Council the Holy Ghost will assist unto infallibility Et solos credit habendos Esse Deos quos ipse colit N. 45. In this he is pleased to move again the same stone which will in the end return upon himself again For how came one Council to acknowledge the Maccabees and another not were not the former Council as well irradiated as the latter Yes they were more in all account but of my Adversary who is not in so good a capacity to grant that the Argument from Authority of the Church graduates its strength by the greater nearness to the Primitive For he holds an equal assistance of the Spirit to the Church at all times But the old saying was Quò antiquius eò melius And the rule is good Ut se habet simpliciter ad simpliciter ita magis ad magis maximè ad maximè if it be good as ancient then the more ancient the more good And this at other times is the advantage which the Romanists would take in claiming the credit of the Original Church to them And besides he might have considered that he had no reason to bring this about again because the reason of their reception as was said before is expressed to depend upon the custome of their being read in the Church which doth not make them or declare them to be Canonical unles in S. Ieroms distinction for the edifying of the people in manners not for confirmation of faith Well then if one Council might see what another did not without prejudice to the object then S. Ierome might not see or Luther what S. Austin did without prejudice to the credibility of Scripture Yea it is not yet proved that S. Austin accounted the Book of Maccabees as Canonical as other Books But this is actum agere And again he repeats what he hath not done Let them not trouble us for they have lost their strength And yet again S. Matthews Gospel N. 46. He had better have solidly proved which he sleightly puts off the proof of in the end of the last section that they do not prove the infallibility of the Church first by Scripture I assure them this is a Fort-royal and therefore this should be made good at all hands Well but let us see his Argument in the face about S. Matthews Gospel which he saies he hath forced a passage to Surely he had no such reason to rally and obtrude this Argument again and to be so confident of it as to say boldly that it cannot possibly by our Principles ever come to be believed with an infallible assent to be Gods true uncorrupted word Why not Nay here is all of this no proof We looked for a Spear like a Weavers Beam or else some new Sword whereby the Philistin thought to have slain David but here is none yet Yea Sâ—apleton shall sufficiently answer him with a contradiction as before who saies It is not absolutely necessary to Faith that it should be produced by the Authority of the Church but it may be caused immediately by the Spirit of God So then it is possible by our Principles to believe it with an infallible assent to be the Word of God And before a Church was formed how did the material Members believe any point of Faith then it is possible But then he slides to another way as he thought of urging hiâ— Argument and that is the Marcionites the Cerdonists and the Manichaeans do deny and others may come to deny the Gospel of S. Matthew to be Gods true Word Yea but this is another question It is one thing to believe it to be Gods Word and another to prove it to him that denies it to be Gods Word Now the question in hand is how we believe it to be Gods Word And therefore we say as to such we deal with them as we deal with others who deny any part of Scripture not by the Authority of the Roman Church and therefore the Romanists get nothing by this Argument but by Universal Tradition as a common Argument which rather makes a Scholastical Faith than a Faith Divine of proper name So that also he cannot reasonably
may not the Church of England have an Authority not limited c. And what need then of running to another Church for more authority But neither is his Text in the Hebrewes well understood or else not well aplied in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the establishment of a better Covenant upon better promises is not certainly intended to have respect to the visible Church for discipline but to the invisible Church for salvation It respects Christ as the Great High Priest to save his Church by the sacrificing of himself once upon the Cross for us not as King of his Church by way of an externall policy as if the Goverment of his Church were part of his Kingdome and of his Gospell If so they give the right hand of fellowship to the other Disciplinarian But also he takes it ill that the text should be limited to case of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother and he thinks rather it should belong to the cases of heresie which is a trespass committed by one Brother against all his Brothers and their dearest Mother the Church yea St. Thomas calls Schism of which heresie is alwaies guilty the highest crime a-against the whole Community Ans It is one thing to say what the text intends another to say what it may be by discourse accommodated to The direct respect of the text in the ordinary sense of the letter is clearly carried to case of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother And the Pontifician by his principles and use is ingaged to the sense of the letter prinipally But 2. dato non concesso that it should also respect case of Heresie notwithstanding also that the terms let him be to thee a Heathen or a Publican we rather referre to the Jewish Church than the Christian yet cannot he have from hence what he would namely the Churches infallibility of Censure in points of Faith For though the Church did infallibly know on which side the truth did stand in every point of Faith and therefore what was opposite thereunto for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he said and therefore that such a doctrine was to be condemned as Heretical yet since though the Church do proceed secundum allegata et probata it may be mistaken in the fact as he confesseth it may erre in the Censure as to a particular person and how then is such a person bound to subscribe to such a Censure as just because he cannot be bound to assent to that which is false as he also lately confessed It is true in civil causes though the sentence be injust I may and must pay the amercement there being no Law against the course of Law and so also in Ecclesiastical cases he that is in justly excommunicated must abide the Censure but all the Authority under Heaven can never make a man beleive in his Conscience that it is a just Censure when he knows himself not to be guilty of the fact namely publishing of an heretical Doctrine and therefore all that can be exacted by man in this case 〈◊〉 passive obedience which the Person may yield though the Conscience doth not yeild that it is a just Censure So that the text is yet preserved in its integrity against binding the Conscience to believe whatsoever is done by the Church to be right and just After this he would winde himself off gradually from supposing any infallibility of particular Churches that so all at length might be ascribed to their Church in solidum for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he said And the Authority he would have to fall upon the Pope and a Council yet he expresseth one Head of the Church and the supream Prelat of the Church So then Before when there was a professed occasion to dispute the point whether the Pope were Head of the Church he was shie and cautious and uncategorical now by the by and under the winde he can assert it so that he may not be bound to prove it We see then what reason they have to afford Prudence a good place in Religion Nullum numen ab est si sit prudentiarum And the main exercise of Ecclesiastical authority the key is laid upon his shoulder He is bound to use the fullness of his power to suppress the arising heresie Now surely they are bound ingenuously to speak out whether they mean this fulness of his Authority of all the Authority he hath or of all Authority that the Church hath There is a fulness of the Fountain there is a fulness of the Vessel Do they allow him the fulness of the Vessel So indeed the Trent Council seemed rather in a good part thereof to incline when they urged so much to have the title of the Council to be established The Representative of the whole Church for had this proceeded his power had been sunk in their power But if he be the Head of the Church my Adversary must allow him the fulness of the Fountain then the controversie is determined betwixt the Jesuits and the Sorbonists and the latter are cast in the suit But then what need of a Council towards infallibility when he hath all the Authority in himself as being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then my Adversary hath not pleased the Court and the Jesuite in joyning the Council as partners in the Authority Nor do the words ensuing bear good respect to the Pope as Head of the Church namely that he may forbid if he feareth danger in the Doctrine that no such Doctrine may be published until the Church shall think it fit Are not these diminuent terms of the Head indeed almost comminuent if we may say so as if the Head of the universal Church the ordinary Pastour and Vicar of Christ Successor of St. Peter could not presently see that there was danger in heretical Doctrine or could not see whether it were heretical doctrine until the Church shall think it fit I had thought the Pope had been an Independent and should not have depended upon the Church for a final resolution at a point heretical And if the Church must meet in a Council to consider of it and all Popes be as disaffected to a Council as some were to the Trent Council what shall become of the people in this danger of heresie I had thought a Council had been but the vicar of Christ His Counsail and though he did condiscend so far to make use of their Counsail yet he could do all alone by his own Authority We heard before that particular Prelats had Authority not limited and must my Adversaries Supreme Prelat be bound to wait for a General Council And then all must be as St. Paul saith Heb. 13.17 Obey their Prelats So he Ans This he means of Prelats not in confuso but in conventu And to these infallibility should be annexed So then Those Prelats who are here meant are infallible Particular Prelats are here meant therefore they are infallible and so there will be no need either
of a Supreme Prelat or of a Council And that particular Prelats are here meant we need not prove to the Pontificians who take too much notice that there Epistles were written but upon particular occasions and for particular times And therefore this being written to the Hebrews should not by that account concern us Yea if it were written with an intention for Prelats in a Council it must be written for them per saltum not for the present times but for above 300. years after 2. This relates to those who did watch for their Souls which being put per se is to be understood of those that teach the Word and so it corresponds to the 7. ver where those that are set over them are specified by teaching the Word The obedience then there injoyned respects those as teaching the the Word not formally as exercising authority of Jurisdiction And therefore that Text is not here well applied Thus far the power of the Supreme Prelat is extended by the consent of the whole Church Ans We see then their own differences to be such as that they may be ashamed to upbraid us with our differences and we not ashamed to be upbraided Can my Adversaries exactly point out the maximum quod sic of the power of the Supreme Prelat of the universal Church Must he that is by them acknowledged to be the Pillar of the Church have his Pillars set him beyond which he must not budge Tell it not to the Canonists and the Courtiers of Rome As Cyril of Jerusalem notes that the Sea where it stints in the flote makes in a similitude a Line which God hath set it that it should not pass So have my Adversaries set a Line to the Roman Sea hitherto it may go by the consent of the whole Church So then the members may appoint the Head what operations and how far it shall perform and the Head shall not be onely influxive upon them but they rather upon it This opinion will make Popes shie of Councils if he hath his power extended by their consent For they do not mean the consent of the whole Church to be of the confusaneous multitude do they if they do then the Church in this sense shall be the first subject of Ecclesiastical power Yea If they also mean it of the Church in a Council how is the Pope successor of St. Peter when the Pope must be limited by the Church St. Peter as they say was Prince of the Apostles immediately from Christ And surely according to this reckning Bellarmins distinction will come to naught who saies the power of Kings is not by divine right but by the consent of the people but the Popes power is for it comes not from the Church but Christ as in his 3. b. de verb. Dei cap. 9. And then he is not the Rock and foundation of the Church but the Church of him and so the spiritual Monarchy must be slighted How far is this from that Italian who presented a book to Paulus the fifth with this inscription PaULo V to Vice Deo out of which one picked the number of the beast 666. But therefore my Adversary goes at the Spanish rate very suspensively in omnem eventum as being disposed to a pause betwixt the affirmative and the negative and he saith Now though the Supreme Head of the Church be as infallible as St. Peter was and so on in a long speech Well but doth this affirm or is it a meer supposition which doth ponere nihil He hath carried the Pope up to the clouds and there he staies but let them come out of the clouds and tell us plainly whether we must take a cloud for Iuno Such irresolution doth not become infallibility He seems to make him as infallible as St. Peter because he should be Supreme Head of the Church and yet St. Peter was not Supreme Head of the Church if the rest of the Apostles be included in the term Church as members and yet he must not be as infallible as St. Peter because cases of difficulty must be referred to the Council It follows yet if he seeth this newly vented doctrine fit to be declared heresie if it be so or to be imbraced if it be fitting and proposed to all Christendome then is the true time of calling a General Council and not to let the people contend by allegations of Scripture We are now step by step soberly mounted to the Soveraign Authority of the Church in a Representative Ans 1. What needs all this trouble if he be as infallible as St. Peter and why do they say that St. Paul went to St. Peter to confirm his Doctrine by St. Peters Authority should there not have been a Council called then as well According to them St. Peters infallibility confirmed St. Pauls Doctrine the Pope according to them is Successour of St. Peter in his infallibility to all effects and purposes as Ruler of the Church therefore he may do it and frustra fit per plures also 2. Note we here that it is to be the true time of calling a Council upon debate of a point heretical which respects Articles of Faith but we have been often told by our Adversaries that we are to have an infallible Judge to decide all controversies emergent Now if there be not a Council to be called but for decision of Articles of Faith as to their's we have lesse need since he that is an Heretique is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks And therefore he needed not to foreclude the peoples contending in allegations of Scriptures for surely Scripture may be alleaged without contention and if it happens sapiens non curat de accidentalibus And so also the Council may contend in allegation of Scripture and therefore they should not alleage Scripture Yea also we may soberly contend that in articles of Faith there needs not be any other contention since they are more plainly delivered in Scripture than that we must stay for a General Council to be established in the belief of them Blessed be God we are better provided for in articles of Faith than to stand in such necessity of a General Council which when such will be and how we shall know it is such according to them we must know by another General Council and that by another and so in infinitum since we know nothing infallibly but by the infallible authority of the Church and that in a General Council We will then take that for our Law whereby the Council must Judge since the matters are plain which are great and about other things small the Judges will not meet Lex non curat de minimis Let Hiero conclude for himself from hence forward whatsoever Archimedes saith it must be believed But it seems it is a book case and example we have hereof by the practice of the Apostles in the 15. of the Acts Though the Apostles were all infallible in their doctrine yet they could not
no better answer the other Council being held good without his royal assent yea notwithstanding his opposition there will be another instance of a Council opposing a Council namely the Council of Ariminum opposing the Council of the first Nicene But thirdly As to his reason why it was not acknowledged a lawful Council because he subscribed not I deny it upon Sozomen his account in his 16. B. 23. ch if he takes his not subscribing as he seems to do for the only cause For he Sozomen saies there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because neither the Bishop of the Romans nor others did consent to them because many did dislike those things which were decreed by them Had they then in the council of Ariminum decreed according to the Nicene Fathers the council of Ariminum might have passed with St. Austin notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome's not subscribing it though not comparatively to the proof of Scripture but we see here in this testimony three particulars against them First That he is here called the Bishop of the Romans Not the Bishop signanter nor the universal Bishop nor the Bishop of the Church He hath but his share with the rest and limited by local Jurisdiction Then how can they say that the Bishop of Rome is the chief Bishop and Head of the Church Secondly We see here that the Consent of others concurs towards the making of a Council lawful And therefore the consent of the Bishop of Rome is not that which is the form informant of the Council nor that which legitimates it And thirdly We see the reason in part at least to be because they disliked those things which were decreed in the Council of Ariminum And therefore if it had been a full meeting and consented to yet had been exceptable against in regard of the matter for surely the presence of all and their Subscription would not have made that matter to be good which was naught For then they had declared that to be good which was not and this had been an errour Therefore though we receive the four General Councils we are not bound to receive the Decrees of every Council because we do not receive the Council simply but do receive the Council for the Doctrine not the Doctrine for the Council Therefore upon the whole matter he had no great reason to admire my instancing in the Council of Ariminum Neither doth it follow that because one Council hath erred therefore every one Therefore that which he saies may be falsly reported that some tax the councils of all ages of errours against Scripture Every one may erre without any impossibility Some have shewed a possibility by errour But any ones possibility doth not inferre any ones act much less of all And if any one should have said so they are acquainted well with their own answer they are but private men that say so And why doth he tell us of Mechanicks that speak disrespectively of all Councils Let them first answer for some body of their black coate who said the Scripture was as a Nose of Wax They make to us a need of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As to the twelfth answer We have had the substance of it also before The incustation of it makes it not solid It doth no way follow that because their first Council Acts 15. said It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Therefore every Council even lawful should say so This is to be proved not propounded And let Ferus their own give them the reason upon the fifteenth of the Acts. Let them either make it good that every assistance is infallible or that every Council had that assistance which is infallible And their postulate that Anathemas should conclude infallibility in their Councils is denied them Secondly They bind more unto peace than Faith And so their form in the Trent Council is Si quis haec attentare presumpserit c. If any shall presume to attempt tnese things c. Thirdly Neither is there such danger by them unless every one were bound to submit his assent Yea me thinks the Trent Council doth speak in their beginnings somwhat more modestly of their Synod in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata lawfully gathered together in the Holy Ghost Every meeting infallible is lawful but every lawful meeting is not infallible As for his thirteenth Answer he takes into a consideartion that of Nazianzen touching Councils And he would distinguish that he did not speak of a lawful free General council called and directed by the chief Pastour of the church prefiding in it So then He doth despise all Councils but such doth he not Yes they will say presently Then he despised all Councils for there were none so called so directed so presided in his time or before nor presently after The fifth Council of Constantinople which was about 553. under Iustinian the Emperour did sit and determin without and against Vigilius the Bishop of Rome And secondly As to that he saies that Nazianzen's speech did respect the times of the Arrian troubles which St. Basil takes notice of we say suppose it yet this also makes a prejudice to all Councils in the time of the Arrian heresie because it is very like that several close Arrians might in Council mingle with the Orthodox And thirdly It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he concludes from a respect to Councils in the other Fathers unto an asserting of their infallibility A genere ad speciem non sequitur affirmative because they gave them some respect therefore such as imported their infallibility it doth no way follow Fourthly Neither doth Nazianzen's respect to the Nicene Council contradict him here For although that might proceed well in his opinion yet speaking de communi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he might say as he said Neither doth it appear that he imbraced it upon its own authority intuitively but because he approved the Doctrines otherwise why should not eight hundred Bishops in Ariminum be as credible as not half so many in Nice But it may be that the conclusions in the Nicene Council were Prophetical and the discourse of those of Ariminum was fallible Yea but they will say that the Discourse in the Nicene Council was fallible though the conclusions Prophetical Let this be proved and we have done But the Nicene Fathers as before professed that they proceeded by principles of Scripture in their determinations And so Bellarmin is driven to confess in his 12. l. de concil Sed ex verbo Dei per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones they deduce their conclusions from the Word of God by discourse Let Bellarmin then answer Stapleton At the latter end of this Section He takes me up for a saying of the Bishop of Bitonto in the Council of Trent And he is confident that that account of him hath no credible ground Ans Surely as good ground as Brierly had for several passages which he produceth out of our
the Apostles was it not Then nothing hinders but that it may be communicated to every of the Popes successively which yet it may be he declines the affirmation of And if it be not communicated to every of the Preists how shall the people be secured from errour by them so as they cannot erre But if they do say infallible assistance is communicated to any immediately then may they see reason for what I said that infallible assistance is immediate or if all infallible assistance be not imediate let them shew another species of infallible assistance To me this argument is good Apostolical assistance was immediate infallible assistance is Apostolical therefore infallible assistance is immediate No question is made of the proposition Nor can they make any doubt of the assumption because they urge as much assistance to the Church now as is Apostolical Therefore had my Adversary reason to interpret me of such infallible assistance which needs no instructions for I know no infallible assistance that doth as appeares by the argument Neither doth his following Instance of the Apostolical Council in the fifteenth of the Acts evince the contrary Though their determinations were not immediately inspired in regard of time or of debate Yet since this debate was not to them necessary how can this make a new species of infallible assistance Likely therefore this Council was in this sort managed by them to be a precedent and example to other Councils which should not have infallible assistance to determin presently and prophetically as soon as the question is proposed And if those who have infallible assistance do use discourse this doth not conclude an infallible assistance which is not immediate He that can prove the creation of the world by principles of Scripture in way of Faith or in order to Faith may prove the same conclusion also by principles of reason in order to science But then it is said in the preface it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Ans To this I say fine praejudicio melioris sententiae that these words do not cogently inferr an infallible assistance of proper name actuated for they may bear that account in respect to the discourse they made by the effects of the Holy Ghost and former declarations And this may appear by that of St. Paul 1. Cor. 17. vlt. she is happier if she so abide according to my judgment and I think also that I have the spirit of God This judgment was not given by infallible assistance because by no inspiration and yet also it doth refer to the spirit of God And according to this proportion might be said it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us and yet those conclusions might not proceed from the Holy Ghost by way of infallible assistance And so farr in other Councils the definitions may be said to be by the Holy Ghost as they are drawn out of principles of Scripture which the Holy Ghost did inspire the Pen-men of it in Yea 2. Since the meeting of them in that Council was but upon convenience in case of Scandal what such necessity was there for that infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost So then let them take it how they will either those determinations were not made by them who were infallible by an infallible assistance and then is not this instance to their purpose or if it was then are they to prove equall assistance to all General Councils otherwise extraordinaries make no species And I am sure the Trent Council hath not credited such assistance as Stapleton and Bellarmin would claim from the Apostolical Council to all General Councils N. 27. Here he would make up the breach which was made upon his strong hold for infallibility in Councils by that place of St. Athanasius as holding the consubstantiality of the Son of God to be the word of God upon the Authority of the Council This was slighted He would repair it but it will not stand That Text upon which the Nicene Council builded their determination is made good ch 2. num 4. In the judgment of the Council it did more then probably determin the Controversie And if he thinks otherwise he doth not believe the Council and therefore not their infallibility His discourse is nothing He cannot determin it Gods word with relation to a Text probable in Scripture therefore he doth it with relation to the infallibility of the Councils authority Well is here all then turne the tables He cannot determin it Gods will with relation to the infallibility of the Councils Authority therefor he did it with relation to the infallible Authority of Scripture Doth he say that the Council holdes it upon account of their Authority or of the Scripture then which is it more likely it should be held upon The Church or the Scripture But let them speake thus when the question is granted Another answer of mine he doth as good as confess that St. Athanasius did not hold it upon the Council because he held it before Here he distinguisheth indeed He held it so in order to himself who was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the antient doctrin of the Church yet in order to others c. Ans He was not Pope was he And yet St. Basil speaks so highly of him as if he had spoken so of the Pope we should have heard of it but if he was not Pope what have we to do to the holding it in order to others He was quoted for his own judgment was he not Then this distinction is impertinent And besides if he was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the antient doctrine of the Church he was convinced that their doctrine was conformable to the true sense of Scripture if not why should he say that the Council urged Scripture to the Arrians if he was then he held it before upon that account Then again he toucheth upon the Council of Ariminum saying that I contend that Council as well to be believed for it self as the Council of Nice and you think c. Ans what I spake by way of interrogation why not is not yet answered by him in the reason of it He wonders that I should urge this Council in way of compare to the contrary But this gives no satisfaction as to my reason that exceptions it seemes were not so availeable against the Council because St. Austin made no mention of them but referred the point betwixt them to Scripture This Council of Ariminum was not so esteemed as the rest but what then from whence did this disesteem proceed from the illegality it seems no for then St. Austin had had a plea against it without waving the Authority of the Nicene Council And surely St. Austin had a very mean esteem of the Authority even of the Nicene Council if having a just exception against the Council of Ariminum he would not pleade it and so bring in the Authority of the Nicene
against the Arrians But it may be the Arrians did not care for the Authority of a Council and therefore St. Austin waved the Nicene Council Yea Then how is the Authority of a Council a Catholick remedy and then it seemes the Nicene Fathers determined against them not by their Authority which they cared not for but by the Scripture So then the disteem of that Council of Ariminum was upon respect to the matter of the definitions And so a Council was not in their opinion ipso facto infallible Therefore he procceds in a fallacy if he argues thus it was never by the Fathers no nor by the Church of England numbred amongst the foure first Councils therefore it was rejected because it was not accounted a lawful Council Because it was rejected therefore for this cause doth not follow because the genus doth contein potentially more species It was refused upon dislike of the matter it seemes as before And as for the reason why it was not lawful he toucheth not here and it was cashiered before He goes on and you might as well thinke that I might prevaile against you by only citing the Council of Trent c. Ans surely the Council of Ariminum in all respects considerable was as hopeful towards infallibility as the Council of Trent it may be more by a a greater number of Bishops and this with my adversary should have borne some weight who should think that multitude of Counsellours is halfe an argument of truth because he would not place infallibility in a singular person as the Jesuit but in a Council with the Pope And if he saies that there was wanting in the Council of Ariminum the presence or consent of the Bishop of Rome we can easily answer that he then had but a single suffrage and there were some hundreds of Bishops more in the Council of Ariminum then were at the Council of Trent Yea also some Decrees of the Council of Trent proceeded without the Pope's confirmation as before But I think they are both alike the Council of Ariminum and the Council of Trent in being deceived Only I think that St. Austin had less to say against the illegality of the Council of Ariminum then we have to say against the Council of Trent And therefore we may follow St. Austin and if he appealed from the Council of Ariminum to Scripture we may as well appeal from that of Trent if they would urge it He saies St. Austin in vaine had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it Ans Me thinkes if I may say so this is not very judiciously spoken because if Maximinus urged the Council of Ariminum he was bound by equall law to be dealt with by the Nicene Council If Maximinus had not urged the Council of Ariminum it had seemed that the Arrian had not a perswasion that this Controversie should be otherwise handled then by Scripture And if he were well furnished with other arguments out of Scripture admitted by him as he it seemes supposeth that he might be what need then of the infallibility of the Church in Councils And it seemes it is the shorter way and more expedite against Hereticks by Scripture as he confesseth in the words following that St. Austin intended by them only at that time to overthrow him and not to medle with a long contention fit to fill a book alone aboue the validity of the Council of Nice and invalidity of that of Ariminum Put then these things together St. Austin it seemes might be sufficiently furnished with arguments out of Scripture against the Arrian he might by them only overthrow him it is a voluminous work to prove the legality of one Council and the illegality of another the Arrian scoffed at the Council of Nice therefore the convenient and easie way of proceeding with and against Hereticks is by Scripture not by the Authority of the Church And this interpretative is the yeilding of the cause And yet if they will yet think Councils as such to be infallible let them think upon that Canon of Nice declaring equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria to Rome and let them think of the Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Constantinople that the Bishop of Constantinople should be equal in his limits to the Bishop of Rome The Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Nestorius that Peter and Iohn were of equal dignity Let them therefore consider well what they have to do for if Councils be not infallible they are in an errour if Councils be infallible they are not because they have declared against them Let them therefore stand on fall by Scripture Let them try it so as St. Austin did N. 29. His discourse herein is fully put into this form all errours in or against things necessary are plainely determined by Scripture This infallibility of the Church is not plainly determined against by Scripture therefore But therefore what That this is no errour Nay that is not rightly concluded but that it is not an errour in things necessary All errours are not in things necessary Therefore if it concludes as it should it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for it is enough to us that it be an errour suppose it were not an errour in things necessary If it concludes that therefore it is no errour it concludes falsly 2. Though the proposition be our doctrine the assumption supposeth that which is not necessary to be granted by us that this infallibility of the Church is an errour in things necessary we do not deny it to be so but we are not by any arguments constrained to say so For though we should not hold it an errour in necessaries yet is it necessary to reject it as an errour knowing it to be so And 3. We say to the assumption that it is sufficiently enough determined against by Scripture namely as necessary to be in the Church because in the Scripture sufficiency to salvation is asserted without it as before And 4. The affirmative should have been proved by them who assert it not the negative to be proved by us And as towards his proof of the assumption that the Scripture is not so clear against this as for this we have nothing to say because he hath nothing to prove it Scaurus nega◠it beggs And we can say better we have proved the contrary N. 29. Here he resumes a Text for them St. Matthew 28. vlt. I made answer to it before that it doth not extend equall assistance to all ages of the Church He now urgeth me to shew a Text wherein the assistance which was infallible in the first age should not be for the Second or Third age he saies to me against your reasons we have our reasons Ans He is here wanting in two offices first in proving that that Text doth extend equal assistance to all ages of the Church for which the respondent is to waite with his
is strangled See here among Necessary things one is to abstain from blood which Christians do not nor think not to be done for they freely eat black Puddings and also to abstain from things strangled as when we strangle Chickens and eat them freely If you tell me that Scripture onely is Iudge of Controversies I will tell you that by the Iudgement of this Iudge following no other as infallible woe be to the Opinion of all Catholiques and Protestants who hold it lawful to work upon Saturdayes unlawful on Sundayes lawful to eat Blood and Strangled things unlawful to abstain from them as still forbidden woe I say to our Opinion for it not onely will not be judged as undoubtedly true by Scripture but also it will and that undoubtedly be judged false by the Places now cited I pray tell me here how Men of mean capacity yea how Men of the greatest capacity in the World shall be able to finde by the judgement of Scripture onely what is Infallibly to be believed in these points in which so many hundred Thousands of Jewes damnably differ from us Did not all this Kingdome of England grounded upon Scriptures clear enough as they said both hold and swear that they held the King the Head of the Church can any point in the Church be of higher concernment to the Church then to know for certain their own Head And yet this point is now no longer ascertained us by the Infallible judgement of Scripture For another example what Controversie can more import then to be undoubtedly and by Infallible Authority secured which books of Scripture be Canonical and the certain Word of God and which be not You say there is no Infallibility of any verity to be had but by the Scripture But I say that in all the Scripture no Infallibility can be had concerning the Canon of the Scripture wherefore either we cannot know this most important point of all points infallibly or else we must acknowledge the Church to be Infallible for the Scripture in this point is wholly silent We dispute and differ highly about the books of Macchabees whether they be the certain Word of God or no. I pray tell me how shall this grand Controversie be decided and decided Infallibly by the â—udgement of Scripture Luther denyeth the Apocalypse to be true Scripture we all in England stand out against him I pray tell me what Scripture we have against him that is Infallible without begging the question which is called into Controversie We all believe the Gospel of St. Matthew not onely to be the true Gospel of Christ and his Word but also to be the Gospel of St. Matthew as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark If any Man should deny this what place of Scripture could we cite against him or what Infallible ground have we of this our belief The Marcionists the Cerdonists the Manichaeans do absolutely deny St. Matthews Gospel to be Gods Word This Controversie you say and all other Controversies of Faith is to be ended by the Scripture I ask what place of Scripture will end this Controversie and all other Controversies about all other books of Scripture which have almost all been denyed to be Gods Word by some Hereticks or other And as for St. Matthew you must know that all Ancient Writers no one excepted do say that he did write in Hebrew and yet neither his Hebrew Gospel nor any one certain Copy of it is extant in the World Tell me then upon what undoubted Ground you beleeve any thing that is in St. Matthews Gospel onely The Greek Translation which we have was made by God knows whom for we know not He might be a faithful or unfaithful Translator he might use a false uncorrect Copy he might mistake in many places by Ignorance in many by Negligence or Malice Upon what Infallible ground shall a converted Manichaean as St. Austin for example believe this Greek Gospel which we have By what Scripture will you presse him to it yea upon what Scripture do you your selves beleeve this Gospel this Greek Translation of S. Matthew If you tell me Saint Matthew did write in Greek I must tell you that all Antiquity no one antient Author excepted say the contrary How will you then ground Infallible belief upon your so new and so uncertain Opinion When this question was moved whether any Book was to be received as the Infallible Word of God or no The Holy Fathers could never finde any more undoubted ground then that the Church did allow or not allow of such Books to be held for Gods undoubted Word Upon this ground St. Athanasius in fine Synopsis receiveth the Gospel of St. Matthew and the other Three Gospels and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas Upon this Ground Tertullian St. Hierome St. Austin and St. Leo professe themselves to admit such and to deny other Books to be Canonical Upon this ground it is that Eusebius Hist Eccles l. 3.19 saith such Scriptures are held for true genuine and manifestly allowed by the opinion of all because they are so According to the Tradition of the Church and that by this Evident Note or Mark they are distinguished from others Behold the most perspicuous mark by which Scriptures could be Infallibly known to be or not be Gods undoubted Word is the Tradition of the Church Whence St. Austin giving a reason to the Manichaeans who believed some part of the Gospel why he cited the Acts of the Apostles which they believed not saith thus Which Book of the Acts it is necessary for me to believe if I believe the Gospel being the Catholick Authority in like manner commendeth both these Scriptures to me So he contra Ep. Fund c. 4. By this the Author of the Reply may see how Insufficient his Answer pag. 25. is when he saith Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church but we do not take them to be Canonical upon her Tradition but assent is setled in them as Canonical in the way of Faith because they are such In thy light we shall see light so by Scripture we shall see Scripture So he but not so any one of the Fathers who were most often pressed to give a reason why they believed such Books to be Canonical why not None of these professed themselves to be so sharp sighted that by seeing onely Canonical Scriptures they could see them to be Canonical Scriptures and that so manifestly as to ground their Faith upon it You by the Apocalyps see it to be Canonical your most illuminated Luther could not see it to be so by that light By all the light he had he Judged St. James his Epistle to be made of Straw yet you see in it a light shewing undoubtedly it to be Gods Word You cannot see the two first Books of Macchabees to be Canonical yet St. Austin believed them to be so for that the Councel of Carthage Can. 47. received them for
such as also the books of Wisdome of which St. Austin saith That it was received of all Christian Bishops and others even to the last of the Laity with veneration of Divine Authority l. de Praedest Sanct. Sanctorum 14. What more cleer And yet you see that all you of the Church of England deny all veneration of Divine Authority to this Book By what Scripture shall we end this and the like Controversies of other Books for which we have as strong proofs as these now cited and you have onely so weak a proof as is a light so peculiar to your selves And upon the certainty given you onely by this sight you firmely believe all the Scripture that you believe that is all the Faith you have all the Beliefe you have depends upon this That you can see so evidently such and such a Book to be Canonical that this your Sight by light received from those Book shewing them to be assuredly Canonical is the onely Infallible Assurance you have that such and such Books are Canonical and consequently this your peculiar sight is the onely Infallible Ground you have to rely upon these books as upon the undoubted Word of God This is your Doctrine this is your Holy Way a way so direct that fools cannot erre by it though you professe so many wise Men in this point have erred even whole General Councels as also so many great Doctors before whose eyes this same light stood as clear as before yours for they Judged very many to be Canonical Scriptures which you deny so weak a ground are you all forced to rely upon even in the main Point of Eternal Salvation whilest you refuse to rely on the Infallible Authority of Christs Church Neither doth this our relying on the Churches Authority derogate to the Scriptures for we do not say that the Church maketh them true Scriptures but it maketh us to have an Infallible Ground to hold them for true Scriptures as they are in themselves and this not because the Church maketh them held to be so but because they are true in themselves as being the Word of God yet not known by themselves to be so by any Infallible knowledge without this the testimony of the Church as Christ was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World but the Infallible testimony of St. John Baptist made many know that he was so And thus Christ was made known to the world by the Infallible testimony of his Apostles upon whose testimony many Thousands believed before the Scriptures were written Therefore for the Scriptures to be believed what they are of themselves for the Infallible Testimony of the Church doth no more derogate to their honour or make the Church Superiour to them then it derogateth to the honour of the Son of God to be believed to be what he is upon the Infallible testimony of his Apostles which testimony had it not been Infallible those who grounded their Faith upon it had had no Infallible ground to believe our Saviour to be him who he is In like manner if the Authority of the Church testifying such and such books to be Gods Word were not Infallible we should have no Infallible ground to know them to be such though they truly be such of themselves but of this Infallibility I will say no more Now I will go on and shew yet further that the Scriptures cannot be the Judges of all Controversies for many things are set down in Scripture in such manner that almost all the Controversies which are in the Church do arise about the true Interpretation of the Scripture And God did well know that this would happen and therefore he must needs know that he should give the world a very unprofitable Judge in order to the keeping of Unity and deciding of Controversies if he should onely leave them a Book about the true meaning of which Book he well knew more Controversies and Disunions in Religion would arise then about any other matter so that the greatest Wits here being at greatest dissention this cannot be That holy way a way so direct to us that fools cannot erre by it No Law-maker of any Common-wealth did ever provide so simply for the Unity of it as to leave them onely a Book of Lawes to be the sole Judge of all their Controversies as I shewed before And surely if Christ had intended to leave us a Book to be our sole Judge in all Controversies then undoubtedly he would in some part of this Book have clearly told us so this importing so exceedingly as it doth and yet he hath not done so Secondly if he would have given us a Book for Judge he would never have given us for our Judge such a Book as the Scripture is which very often speaketh sometimes so Prophetically that most would think it spoke of the present time when it speaketh of the time to come that it spoke of one person for example of David when it speaketh of Christ sometime it speaketh by a Figure by a Metaphor by a Parable it hath Tropological Allegorical Anagogical and Mystical senses It useth the Imperative Mood as well for Councels as Commands In no place it so much goeth about to set down a Catalogue of any particular points necessary and onely necessary to be believed which any wise Law-maker would do if he intended by his writings to end all Controversies in Faith yea the Scripture seemeth often to say evidently that which according to your Doctrine is false You hold for Superstitious the Annoynting of sick Persons with certain Prayers and yet Saint James saith cap. 5. ver 14. Is any sick among you let him call for the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him annoynting him with Oyl and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Is not this Controversie clearly by this place of Scripture decided against you or have you any one place half so clear to the contrary Again about those other most clear words spoken in the Institution of another great Sacrament in which any wise Man would speak clearly This is my Body the late Adversaries of the Roman Church have found out above two hundred several Interpretations They will needs have the sense to be figurative although never any Man in any figurative speech was heard to speak thus For example to take a Vine a Lamb a Door in his hand and say this Vine this Lamb this Door is Christ This is no kinde of figurative speech though it be a clear figure to say Christ is a Vine a Lamb a Door yea he is Bread But to take Bread into a Mans hand as Christ did and then say This Bread is my Body to take a Cup of Wine into his hand and to say This is the Cup of my Blood which shall be shed for you doth not so much as sound like a figurative speech and yet our Adversaries think it so certainly to be so that they venture