Popes Legates sitting in it yet pleased not the Pope by their decree in the second Session That the Pope ought to be subject to a general Council This was also the decree of the Council of Constantinople which notwithstanding was called by John the 24. and confirmed by Martin the 5 two Popes 3. Infallibility is not subjected in the body of the faithful for it 's a clear truth which Dr Featly observed Whatsoever the Romanists say of the infallibility of the Church they resolve it at last into the Authority of the Church Indeed if we speak of the universal visible Church as comprehending all Beleevers in the world it 's not possible that all should err for then Christ should want a Church but for particular Churches it 's most evident they are subject unto error Papists profess it openly of other Churches and sometimes confess it of the Roman The Council of Trent decree to reform many things in manners and doctrine in that Church and there was great need so to do Cassander ingeniously acknowledgeth a defection from the primitive Church Cassand Cons Act. 7. p. 929. both in regard of integrity of manners and discipline and also in regard of sincerity of doctrine and further saith that this Church hath provoked her Husband multis erroribus vitiis with her many errors and vices From all this it 's most infallibly true that the Roman in none of their Considerations is infallible I will now come to examine his Arguments Pag. 12. he begins with a supposition saying Supposing it for granted that Christs knowledg of Gods revealed Truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching and teaching to the full height and perfection of a Rule of Belief to the first Christians it cannot in reason be denyed he having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches as appears by his own words Joh. 15. Joh. 20. but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians whence it follows that all matters of Belief as well other Points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit and that whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Belief In answer hereunto I will first consider the Supposition and afterwards the inferences and proofs of them There are divers things herein questionable if not simply false 1. 'T is said Christs preaching and teaching was a Rule of Belief Ans If by these acts you understand the materia circa quam the matter of his preaching viz. the Scripture or Word of God then it 's true that his teaching was the Rule of Faith i. e. that which he taught and discovered to them was the Rule of Faith but if you understand it of his transient preaching as if by these acts he propounded to them a Rule of Faith for so your words seem to import it 's false for Christ by his preaching did not propound a new Rule of Faith but did onely reveal that rule of Faith which was before laid and was contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Hence it was that Christ sent his hearers to the Scriptures John 5.39 and himselfe did preach out of the Scriptures Luk. 24.25.26 27 44. c. Luk. 4.16 and that for this end as Beda notes that he might manifest himself to be the same that spoke in the Prophets Beda apud Lyran. and that he might remove that sacrilegious conceit that there was one God of the Old another of the New Testament Yea further Thus did the Apostles after him Act. 26.22 they preached nothing but what was contained in the Law and Psalms and Prophets 2. 'T is said was a Rule of Beliefe to the first Christian◠Ans And is it not a Rule of Belief unto us who are after-Christians Had the primitive Christians one Rule of Faith and we another If there be one Faith why not one Rule of Faith to all Christians why doth the Apostle exhort the Philippians and in them all Christians to walk by the same rule In eadem regulâ fidei Phil. 3.16 Gloss interl If there were one rule doth that blessing Gal. 6.16 extend only to the Primitive Churches and not rather to all Christians who were to walk by the same rule that they walked The teaching of Christ doth not make one rule and of the Apostles another but both reflect upon and explain one and the same rule of Faith 3. Whereas you say Christs knowledg of Gods revealed truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching c. Pon might have done well to have explained what knowledg and what power this is you speak of which is sufficient to qualifie a person for propounding a rule of Faith I conceive its requisite 1. that this knowledg extend to whatsoever Faith is to belief for seeing the rule of Faith must be exact containing neither more nor less then Faith is to belief hence it will follow the Propounder of this rule must know what is the adequate object of Faith This universality of Christs knowledg is hinted in one of the Texts you mention viz. Joh. 15. All I have learned of my Father I have made known unto you Here is first an universal knowledg and then the proposal of a rule suitable to this knowledg 2. That this knowledg be most certain and infallible no teaching can be a rule of belief but that which is grounded on infallible knowledg conjectural knowledg may be a ground of opinion not of Faith Hence is that expression Joh. 19.35 He that saw it bare record and his record is true and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe Now this infallibility in the subject knowing ariseth either 1. from the Divine Nature in the person Thus the persons in the Trinity are only infallible and for this cause it is that many learned Papists do deny that our Faith is resolved into the authority of the Church and Azorius tells us that in his time it was the common opinion of your Divines that Faith was ultimately resolved into God Inter Cathol tres sunt opiniones una est asserentium primam rationem in quam fides nostra ultimò resolvitur esse Deum revelantem quae sunt fidei Deus enim est prima summa veritas quaé falli ullo modo nec fallere potest ac ratio credendi debet esse talis ac tanta ut ei falsum subesse non possit Haec opinio quam sequitur Cajetanus est communi consensu in Theol. Scholis modo recepta Azor. instit Moral parl 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. the revealer of the objects of Faith and that upon this account because he could neither deceive nor be deceived being the prime and chief Verity and the reason of Faith must be such as cannot deceive and for this reason he rejects
The reasons of my denial are these 1. It s the priviledg of the Word of God written or the Scripture to be the ground of Faith These things are written that ye might believe Joh. 20. ult i. e. that your Faith might have a certain foundation revelations or traditions being more uncertain and easily pretended where they have no existence or being Compare with this 2 Pet. 1.18.19 Ye have a more sure word of Prophecie that is In quo magis confirmetur auditor whereby the hearer may be more confirmed So that the word is more sure and that to us inasmuch as we are thereby more confirmed Hence it is that our Saviour sends his hearers to the Scriptures that therein they might finde what they have to believe Joh. 5.39 So doth the Prophet Isa 8.20 and Abraham in the parable Luk. 16.29 which your Lyranus comments thus upon Lyran. in Luk. 1 is 29. Habent Moysen c. they have Moyses who taught moral actions and the Prophets who delivered mysteries of Faith and these suffice to salvation therefore it follows let them hear them This was the measure of the Apostles preaching and faith Act. 26.22 Act. 17.10.11 By this the Bereans tryed the truth of the Apostles preaching and for its conformity thereto Annot. of Divines on the Text. did receive it into their belief 't is said therefore many of them believed i. e. because of the testimony of the Scriptures So that we may truly say that if the Apostles had preached any thing beside or contrary to Scripture the Bereans would not have believed their preaching and the Apostle himself would have justified them herein Gal. 1.8.9 On which Text Augustine hath this note Qui praeter greditur Aug. apud Lyran. in c. He that goes beside the rule of Faith doth not walk in the way but departs from it Neither would the Apostle himself have us found our hope on him but on that truth which he declared That which was spoken by him was better then he by whom it was spoken From whence what can be more clearly infer'd then that 1. The Word of God preached is the rule of Faith And 2. That faith is not resolved into persons preaching the truth but into the truth preached by them contrarie to both which is your minor Proposition 2. Ans Supposing it true that the Church must be the ground of Faith yet I affirme that this is not yours or any other present Church but only the Primitive Church which as I have already shewed is of greater authority then the present Church which is in a kind grounded upon the Apostolike Church or that Church which contains the Prophets Apostles c. All succeeding Churches are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets whose testimony because of their visible converse with God and Christ becomes efficax ad credendum effectual for the grounding of Faith It s observeable that whereas Abraham might have told the rich man that his Brethren had a present Church to hearken to yet he only mentions Moses and the Prophets 2. I affirm that if your Church be a foundation of Faith yet this would not be a Divine but only an humane Faith And indeed this is the very reason why your Doctors commonly held that Faith is ultimately resolved upon God himself revealing the truth as Azorius observes because Divine Faith must be resolved into a Divine testimony which the testimony of the Church is not and they prove it by divers arguments especially by foure which I have transcribed out of Azorius And though he do not altogether adhere to their opinion Ratio 1. Ecclesiae testimonium est quidem divinum sed participatione non per se sua naturâ at Dei testimonium est divinum per se suâ naturâ fides divina resolvi debet in testimonium quod sit per se non autem participatione divinum 2. Quae sunt fidei revelatione Divinâ non naturae lumine sunt patefacta at Deus est qui revelat ac pandit res fidei non ecclesia 3. In Angelis Prophetis Apostolis caeteris Librorum Cananicorum Scriptoribus fides non resolvebat in ecclesiae testimonium sed in Deum per se pro xime revelantem at fides nostra est ejusdem speciei cujus fui illa Ergo in eandem rationem credendi reducitur 4. Quamvis ecclesia sit testis non tamen Condit aliquem articulum fidei sed declarat explicat quae sunt fidei c. Azor. Instit Moral Parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. but allows somthing to the Church yet he acknowledges that it 's ex accidenti by accident that our Faith is resolved into the Churches authority Again 2. Many learned Papists believe and teach that it 's onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that this or the other Pope is Peters Successor and Christs Vicar on earth because it depends on this Proposition that this or the other Pope is orderly and Canonically chosen to the Popedome which is also objected against General Councils Now how can we believe a Popes Decrees for a Divine Faith when it s onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that he is Pope or Peters Successor Becanus clearly resolves That if any stay in the resolution of the Church and ascend not to the Scripture his assent who believes because of the authority of the Church is not an assent of Theological Faith but of an other inferiour order viz. that which Scotus calls an acquired Faith and saith is only conceived by the Churches testimony which indeed is nothing else but an human faith for its such a Faith whereby we believe one that may both be deceived himself and may deceive us although we believe that he will not deceive us Sot lib. 2. de Nat. grat c. 7. Hereupon Sotus acknowledgeth of him that he held the authoritie of the Church to be only humane than which what can be more contradictory to your assertion 3. Ans I grant that the testimony of the Church is an external motive to belief as is also consent of people conformitie of the things believed to natural light accomplishment of Prophecies Miracles Gods Judgments against the Enemies of Truth c. The testimonie of the woman of Samaria was an external motive to the Samaritanes belief not the formal cause of it so the preaching of Godly Ministers is a means whereby men are brought to believe yet you will not conclude that Faith is built on them and they infallible It is the Church by which as a means not for which as the formal ground we do believe Your fifth Argument is taken from the Churches composure and nature 5. Arg. p. 18. 16. in these words Look on the Churches composure and nature and her strength will appear yet more by reason she is framed and made up of men Gen. 22. dispersed and spread over the world Act. 1. who
capacity of our condition is not sufficient to denominate or render the subject it is in perfect or an exact keeper of the Law of God If a debter owe twenty pound and hath but five pound which he pays to his Creditor doth the payment of this five pound which is as much as the present capacity of his condition reacheth to denominate and render him a perfect payer of his debt I trow not and pray Sir shew the difference betwixt this and your assertion CHAP. VI. Of Religion 1. YOu assert that Religion consists in belief not humane grounded upon reason but relying on the Churches authority and the assistance of the Holy Ghost Religio est virtus perquam homines Deo debitum cultum reverentiam exhibent Aquin. 22. q. 81. 1. c. religio est quae cultum honorem Deo tribuit Azor instit mor. p. 1. l. 3. c. 26. l. 9. c. 5. p. 23. Answ 1. The proper act of Religion is to worship and bring honour to God with relation to whom only Religion is defined by your Schoolmen and others This worship is due to God only and is that whereby we give up our selves unto God as the supream Lord of all and do place our hope and that in him as Azorius defines it According to this faith is a part of divine worship an act of Religion but relating to God the supream Lord of all not to the Church which is only a servant under him or if you will an assembly of his servants and indeed its reason that faith should refer to God it being the principal act by which a creature honours God and therefore is more pressed then any other Evangelical duty and besides its requisite it have a settled object to rest upon which is Gods authority for the Churches is not always visible Abraham beleeved but his faith relied not upon the Churches authority The Blessed Virgins faith could not rest upon any authority of the Church especially at Christs death when your men affirm that the Church was in her only but even then the Word of God the material object of faith had a visible existence and the fidelity of God faiths formal object was present with her to lean upon The Scriptures you urge to prove that faith relies on the Churches authority viz. Mark 16. John 14. make nothing for you the later speaks only of the Disciples instruction by the Spirit of God The former proves that we must beleeve the Gospel the material object of faith but saith not a word of the Church it saith not he that relies upon the Churches authority shall be saved Whosoever beleeves the Gospel whether he receive it from the Church or not shall be saved I challenge you or any that dotes on the word Church to give me any Scriptures that teacheth to beleeve in or on the Church and think you not the Apostles knew how to speak as well as you 2. I have already shewed that the Churches authority is but humane in the judgment of learned Papists and that the Spirits assistance makes her not infallible nor a guide or rule of belief Your self do in effect confesse at least of the present Church For you say pag. 16. To be the guide of belief requires further ability and skill to lay open immediately to belief Gods reveled truth a prerogative belongs to the Church and no other as to whom alone revelation was made Now this ability is not in the Church she laies not open immediately Gods reveiled truth whether hereby you mean that the Church speaks to the heart the seat of faith or that she doth it not by means of the Scriptures the Church lays open divine truths by the means of Scripture Besides the Church is not the subject of revelation which you say is the foundation of this prerogative Your Logical proceeding in councels shew your want of reuelation Your consciousness hereof makes you say revelation WAS made it was but is not so now 3. Your inference hereupon is 1. Thus The Religion of sectaries is vain their b lief being grounded on some humane respect not upon the warrantable authority of the Church ibid. Answ There may be belelief gounded neither on the authority of the Church nor on humane respects Consult Azorius and he will tell you that there are Cathâ—liques who ground not their faith on the authority of the Church and yet ground it not upon humane respects The Word of God revealed unto us by the light of faith wrought in the soul by the spirit is no humane respect and this Orthodox Christians build their belief upon 2. Inference For them to deserve the name of true Christians and to be stiled of the right Religion their only way is to level at perfection that takes its rise from an absolute resignation of their wills to the will of God in order to the Church which is to become spiritually little ones Matth. 18. Answ 1. Where do you learn that this grounding our belief upon the authority of the Church is the way yea the only the way to be true Christians and of the right Religion Are not those Papists who differ from you in this point and such there are as I have shewed true Christians and of the right Religion I am sure they are Papists for the main and therefore cannot be of a wrong Religion if popery be the right 2. Who told you that that Text of Matthew was to be so expounded I have seen divers expositions of the fathers on this Text different from yours but I find not one that from it doth teach us to ground our faith on the Church as the only way to true Christianity and the right Religion 3. It s a good lesson to teach us to submit our wills to the Will of God but it doth not appear that we should ground our faith upon the Churches authority the Scriptures are altogether ignorant and destitute of expressions of such a duty CHAP. VII Of the unity of Religion JN the beginning of this Chapter you assert that True Religion is One but presently fal upon the unity of persons in this one Religion and to the means whereby they come to be united which means you propound in these words viz. Experience shews that this unity of Religion is an effect of acknowledging the Church for the rule of belief it being visible to the eye that all that square their belief to the Church are one in religion whereas they that take to themselves other rules discent and jarre c. p. 28. Asw 1. Whether those who acknowledg the Church for the rule of belief be so one in Religion as that they neither dissent nor jarre I refer it to any mans judgment who hath but ordinary insight into the writers of Popish controversies I wonder whose experience it is that finds it Or what Alseeing eye it is that discerns All acknowledgers of the Churches authority to be one in Religion Have you seen
Durand Scotus Gabriel and Almain for concluding that the authority of the Church is the reason of our belief of the things of Faith 2. From immediate inspiration of the Spirit Thus the Apostles were immediately inspired so that in their delivering of the truth they could neither fallere nec falli neither deceive nor be deceived this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 The later of whom perswades us to give heed to the word of God because the holy pen-men of it were inspired by the H. Ghost Again for power which you leave unexplained it may be observed that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belonging to Christ 1. Authoritative which is his designation or appointment hereunto this may be understood by that text you cite As my Father sent me c. 2. Qualitative or dispositive this is Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one is his power the other his authority Again this power is exercised two wayes 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him Thus it s said All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you Joh. 15.15 This is his outward teaching 2. By commanding the heart to believe and consent to those truths he reveals this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal 110. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth by stamping upon it a divine authority Majesty and withall by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it This way doth Christ exercise his power in bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures as the rule of its belief 2. I proceed now to your consequence He having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians Ans 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother or give other Churches liberty to claim equal priviledges with her whilst you talk of Churches you neglect construction and come in with a She may challenge 2. 'T is false that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them For 1. There is no need of another rule for them the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christians and fully sufficient and perfect as your self confess If that Christs teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule i. e. be a compleat and perfect rule what needs another rule or can this other rule be higher then that which hath its full height or have greater extent then that which is perfect the perfection of Christs rule shews that nothing can be added to it If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians but not for after Christians I desire to know the ground of this distinction for I am ignorant of it 2. The succeeding Church hath not communicated to her the same knowledg and power that Christ had her knowledg is not universal there hath been in every Age since your Churches Apostacy an addition of supposed truths which the former Age believed not Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds as necessary to be believed unto Salvation which formerly were not so imposed if once thought of sure then the Church before the Trent Council either knew not the whole revealed will of God and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief or you propound a larger object then Faith will well admit Again her knowledg is not infallible as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed Besides this it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before the same may be said of power it s not the same with Christ they want both his power and authority as I have explained them Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach be the same that Jesus Christ and his Apostles preached and taught then it is a rule of Faith to us but thus it s not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule but its identity with the Scriptures the marrow of Christs and the Apostles preaching Thus the assertion is true otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule as I have already shewed and this is my Antagonists meaning as appears by his next words All matters of Faith as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account c. 2. Consequence or rather the first consequence arising from that is in these words Whence it follows pag. 13. that all matters of belief as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit Ans 1. If by other points you understand other points of Faith then are contained in Scripture you take that for granted which is notoriously false viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures containe not and consequently that they are imperfect and insufficient to be a rule of Faith and this is most false For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them that was all contained in Scripture and more was not imposed as necessary to be believed to Salvation I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more then Scripture even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions but as it contains more then Scripture so is it much larger then any Creed that was used before it so that either their Faith was imperfect having an imperfect foundation or yours is redundant transgresseing the bounds of a right and ancient rule 2. The Scriptures testifie their own sufficiency 2 Tim. 3.15 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts Act 26.22 with chap. 20.27 Lyran. He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation and yet preached nothing but what the Scriptures did contain Ans 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that other fundamental points besides this The Scriptures are the word of God are the truths of God and to be believed meerly because the Church asserts it so that the Churches affirmation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths as I suppose you mean this I deny For 1. The Scriptures contain in themselves arguments that may convince a true Christian that they are the Word of God Many notes are given by Protestants which to you pulling them in pieces and viewing them singly seem weak which conjunctim or all together have
much strength in them He that reads the Scriptures with a spiritually enlightened mind cannot but confess that never meer man spake like the Holy Writers and that flesh and blood revealed not those things to them which they declare but God only 2. Upon what account was this truth taken up by the first Christians for the space of three hundred years after Christ they could not take it up upon the Churches account and credit for your Authors hold that its only in the power of Oecumenical Sinods to define which are the Scriptures and for this time there was no such a Sinod called The first Sinod that I finde delivering the Canon of Scripture was that of Laodicea held about the year 364. Afterwards the third Council of Carthage both Provincial Sinods only though afterwards confirmed in a General Council 3. Upon what account or credit doth your Church take up this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God Sure you are so great an Enemy to Spiritists that you will not think of extraordinary Revelations or Enthusiasms I hardly think that ever the Holy Ghost fell upon your Popes or Councils in fiery Tongues or that they had either visions or dreams nor do I think that you will say that your Church propoundeth the Canon of Scripture meerly upon the supposal of former practise that former Churches did allow and believe the Scriptures now received are Canonical for this is only a testimony concerning matter of fact in which 't is confessed the Pope may erre through wrong informations There may be spurious Canons foisted into former Councils like Pope Zozimus Canon of the Nicene Council whereby he maintained his Supremacy I therefore suppose that your judgment must be that your Church assisted by the Spirit doth from internal notes of Scripture conclude the divine authority thereof Hence 't is that Councils proceed by argument and reason and there is an acknowledgment of the truth before they proceed to definition or Decree Now if the Church take up Scripture upon this account that she through the assistance of Gods Spirit discerns the notes and marks of Gods Word why may not a Christian by the same assistance discover these notes and so believe that the Scriptures are Gods Word upon the same account that the Church takes up this beliefe though withal he doth and ought to reverence and highly account of the judgment of the Church or Pastors of it as that which hath a Priority and is an occasion of Christians private judgment and a confirmation of it yet as I hinted before it must not be denied that Christians have a divine light in themselves being taught of God Joh. 6.45 which is for the discovery of divine objects as natural light or reason is for the discovery of natural This Bellarmine confesseth saying Bellar. de lumine fid Conc. 1. Quemadmodum omnes homines c. As all men are indued with a certain natural light whereby they understand the first principles to be true without labour without arguments nor is there any that demands reasons and arguments when those principles are propounded So also all Christians enlightened by God with a certain divine and supernatural light do acknowledg the first principles of our Faith though difficult and exceeding reason to be most true Origen in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he proves the Divinity of Scriptures by divers arguments Origen lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. as Protestants do hath a notable speech to this purpose Si quis cum omni judicio c. If any one doth judiciously and with that reverence that is meet consider of the Sacred Writ while he reads and diligently searcheth into it most certainly having his minde and senses affected with some divine inspiration he acknowledgeth that the word he reads is not the word of men but of God and of himselfe perceives ex semetipso sentiet that these books are written not by humane art or mortal eloquence but by the hand of God Thus I suppose it was with the first Christians of whom you cannot say that they believed the books of Scripture to be the Word of God meerly because the Apostles and others held them they were so but upon other account this overthrows your Position What I have said of the Scriptures may be said of other points of Faith that they are not taken up meerly or mainly upon the Churches credit and account but rather because God hath revealed them in his Word wherein they are therefore written that we might have a sure argument for our Faith But I come to your next inference 2 Consequence or Conclusion Whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of faith Magna Diana Romanorum Great is your Roman Goddess but its only with the Shrine-makers of Rome your conclusion is very high but notoriously false For 1. It s not the Churches definition that makes any book Apocriphal but the want of divine inspiration in those who wrote them so that whatsoever is not written by the Prophets or Apostles the Subjects of divine inspiration that is certainly Apocriphal whether the Church receive them or not Hence many of your learned men reject those books as Apocriphal which the Council of Trent declared to be Canonical the Apostle saith All Scripture is by divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 the Scriptures of the Old Testament are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.19 read Luke 24.27 2. It was six hundred years after Christ before any General Council delivers the Canon of Scripture now will you say that till that time the books of Scripture were Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith 3. The Spirit of God may work Faith in the Soule while it is reverently reading the Word of God without the testimony of the Church the person for the present being ignorant what the Church teacheth of particular points this is clear by the place of Origen even now mentioned Lyranus speaks of a teaching of the Spirit Lyran. in 1 Joh. 2.27 Vbi deficit humana Doctrina 4. When the Thessalonians received the Apostles Doctrine not as the word of men but as the Word of God Greg. Analus fid lib. 1. c. 15. was this Doctrine no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Your Gregory of Valence confesseth Multa sunt c. There are many points of Christian Doctrine which of themselves can procure to themselves credit and authority Lastly the Greek Church with the reformed Churches receive all the Articles of the Apostles Creed because consonant to Gods Word not because delivered by your Roman Diana are those Articles therefore to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Sure you cannot be so impudent as to assert it though we know Jesuitical impudency is not little For your Scriptures Sect. 2. When I see them reduced to arguments I shall
endeavour to answer them for the present I understand not what they should prove and therefore dismiss them without any answer In your third Section you go about to prove the Churches infallibility as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith and you urge divers Arguments which I now come to examine and answer Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrability whereby to convey the truth safely and without danger of miscarrying by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth against ignorance error darkness weakness For this you urge divers Texts In these words though they seem an intention of but one argument yet there are these two viz. 1. If the Church cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability then Christ hath endowed her with it But she cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability Ergo c. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth viz. ignorance darkness error and weakness then hath he endowed her with inerrability but he hath so armed her Ergo c. To these in order Ans First to the first I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the major Proposition the reason of my denial is this Christ hath not made the Church the principal much less the only means of conveying truth safely Though yoor Pope Cardinals Jesuites Priests yea General Councils should err yet there remains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying that is the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 Beda paraphrasing upon those words In a dark place Beda apud Lyran. hath this note In hujus saeculi nocte c. In the night of this world full of temptations vices and errors where there is hardly one to be found without error against which this light is necessary So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations vices errors in the judgment of this venerable Author It may be you will object that infallibility is necessary for the Church that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is But I deny this to be true For 1. It cannot be denied but God did make use of the Jewes to preserve the Scriptures Rom. 3.2 yet by the leaven of their Doctors the Pharisees the Commandments of God were transgressed Matth. 23.5 Yea it evidenceth their errability that they mistook the sense of the Law and when Christ came Mariana tract pro edit vulgát cap. 7. p. 50. that they did generally oppose and resist him and yet I believe the Scriptures yea I had almost said the very iota's and titles of them were preserved from miscarrying Your Authors confess of the Hebrew text that there is no substantial error in it 2. The Law was by Gods providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord unknown to any till Hilkiah the High-Priest found it in the daies of Josiah 2 King 22.8 Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledg not the Greek Church to be a true Church yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them whilest the error of the Chiliasts and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to receive the Eucharist remained in the Church which was for some 100. of years yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarrying The truth is Gods Providence is chiefly ingaged for the preservation of these books and that concurring any means that God useth may suffice though they were Turks and Heathens that had the keeping of them 2. I answer by denying your Minor and say the Church may convey the truth without the gift of inerrability bestowed on her as well as other Churches subject to errour have done Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds the Commandments and Scriptures though we deny you to be sound members of the Catholike Church We admire and adore Gods providence not your inerrability had not a Divine hand overawed you I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better then the Fathers have done whose writings you have notoriously corrupted and falsified as hath beene manifested against you by our learned Writers 2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I answer by distinction viz. a subject and particularly the Church may be armed against ignorance darkness error and weakness either in regard of hurts blows and lesser foils or in regard of total ruine or a final overthrow or if you will these may be considered either as total or only partial It 's exemption not onely from total and ruining ignorance darkness error and weakness but from inferiour degrees hereof that can prove infallibility in the subject so exempted So then if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils so as they cannot at all hurt her then your Argument is good but this exemption I utterly deny Christ hath only so far armed his Church whilst Militant against these that they shall not ruine or destroy her gross ignorance and obstinate error the forerunners of ruine cannot happen to the Church but lesser degrees of these may This is confessed by your own Authors of each of these 1. Ignorance Lombard saith Lomb. l. 4. dist 18. f. Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium c. God doth not alwayes concur with the judgment of the Church which judgeth somtime by stealth and ignorance 2. Darkness Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. Occam saith Circa illa c. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expresly it s not necessary that the Churches judgment be alwayes certain Sure uncertaintie of judgment must arise from darkness 3. Error Thus Picus saith Fieri potest c. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural Franc Picus Theor. 23. and as this noxious humour so that may diffuse into the body unsound opinions Stapl. Relect c. 1. q. 4. Art 5. Not. 1. Stapleton confesseth That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places because great men may not only doubt but err in some points of Doctrine and yet the true Church remain with them 4. Weakness Thus Turrecrema saith Quamvìs ecclesia Turrecr sum d. Eccles 2. c. 112. c. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men something through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine Thus it 's confest that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies But because you bring Scripture to patronize your cause let us see whether it speak for you 1. Against Ignorance you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven Ans 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Churches infallibilitie from this Text all that they conclude from it is this That to the Apostles and
by this means being of several Nations Ps 11. different tempers and interests Luk. 24. neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves or posteritie with a lie Which may be reduced to this Syllogism If the Church be composed of men of several Nations different tempers and interests then it 's infallible but it is so composed c. therefore infallible A. To your minor I shall onlie say that if I were not otherwayes perswaded to believe it then by your proofs of it which are to be sought like a Needle in a Bottle of Hey I should doubt of the truth of it Sure you intended your proofs for your Romish Catholiques who you know read not Scripture But what needs all this ado this sensless urging of holy Scripture to prove that the Church is composed of men men of several Nations different tempers and interests But leaving this for your bruitish admirers to ruminate on I deny the consequence of your Major Proposition which is this That society that is framed and made up of men dispersed and spread over the world c. is infallible What Schoolboy that knows what infallibilitie is would assent to this Who knows not that Herod and Pontius Pilate the Jews and Romans men of several Nations of different tempers and interests yet conspired in resisting the Gospel and crucifying of Christ Are not the Mahometans men of several Nations yea more then true Christians possess different tempers and interests yet damnable erroneous What do you think of the 72. Interpreters Oyril Caled 3. pag 99. who were sent by Eleazer the Priest to Ptolemy to translate the Hebrew Text into Greek which they did without any discrepancie eirher in sense or words though kept asunder one from another Do you think they were infallible The Arian Church was composed of men dispersed over the world of different tempers and interests yet most dangerously erroneous Yet further when our Saviour suffered some of your Doctors say the Church was only in the blessed Virgin how would this your argument have proved the Churches infallibilitie at that time Your citation of Gen. 22. and Act. 1. and Ps 11. and Luk. 24. would have been to no purpose Once more shall not the Antichristian Church having these qualifications yet damnably err 2. Tell me what you understand by different tempers and interests Is it that some are godly some wicked some promoters of Christs interest some advancers of the Devils By your tempers mean you that some are hot others cold and a third sort lukewarm And by your different interests that some promote the Popes interest others the interest of Councils against the Pope This is your Churches composure but proves no infallibilitie 3. If the verie seeming contradictions in Scripture overthrow the Protestants Argument for its Divine Authoritie from its concent and harmonie which Vane in his late books labours to prove Why do not your real differences which Bellarmine declares to the world Vane's Lost Sheep p. 16. much more conclude against your infallibility But you seem to be sensible of the insufficient of your Argument and therefore before the end of your Section you flie to Gods assisting and strengthening of the Church whereby she becomes infallible But this I have answered before and avoid repetitions CHAP. V. Of the possibility of keeping the Commandments J Cannot but wonder what your method should be in this book and how this Chapter should come in next to the former When you had spoken so much of conformity of faith to the Church which you account as the first means of supernatural happiness what rational man but would have thought but that you should have said somthing of the conformity of hope to the Lords Prayer which you laid down as a second means and not have leapt to the third in such haste I could almost think that you are secretly proving adoration of that Roman Creature the Church of Rome for in your former Chapter you have been freeing her from Error here you free her from sin for if any be free from sin it must be the Roman Church And your next Chapter is about Religion or religious worship But seeing I have begun I will continue to follow you In this chapter you weave Penelope's Web what you say in the first and second Section you clearlie unsay in the third which will therefore help me in answering your former assertions You begin with exceeding confidence wondering that any can make question of the possibilitie of keeping the Commandments But the ground of this your confidence is misapplication of Scriptures as I shal through Gods assistance make it appear in my answers to you You urge Scripture examples and arguments The Scriptures you mainly urge are these Deut. 30. and Mat. 11.21 1 Deut. 30. They are not above but very neer us in our mouths and in our hearts to do them It s the Argument of your Donatists but makes not for you to prove possibilitie of perfect obedience that which it proves is the perspicuitie of the Law as to the Jews knowledg of it Vatab. Annot in Loc. That word which you render above is by Vatablus rendred Hid non est occultum à te It s not hidden from thee As if he should say to them you have no cause to plead ignorance of the Law seeing it s not hid from you but published to you being in your mouths i. e. in ore Levitarum c. in the mouths of the Levites who are of thy people that thou mayest receive from them those precepts that concern a good lâ—fe Id. ibid. and that they may teach them thee without delay This is more confirmed by his Marginal Note Praeciditur hic c. Here is cut off from the Jews all occasion of pleading their ignorance of the Law 2. These words do mainlie intend the words of Faith Rom. 10.8 i. e. the application of Christs righteousness to us by Faith Thus Lyranus explains it saying Lyran. Ostenditur c. Here is shewed the facility of that righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ which the Apostle opposeth to righteousness by the Law Phil. 3.9 Vatablus is verie clear in this point understanding it of that righteousness which is freely bestowed on Faith his words at large are these Si de sola lege c. If this were spoken only of the Law his argument were frivolous in that the Law of God is nothing easier to be done by being before our eyes then if it were far off Moses therefore in this Chapter as in the fourth doth commend unto the people Gods special good will as appears by that place of Paul Rom. 10 8. in bringing them under his tutorage which commendation could not be taken from the naked Law Nor doth it hinder that Moses preacheth of ordering their life according to the rule of the Law for the free righteousness of Faith hath the Spirit of regeneration accompanying it therefore one is
by faith without the deeds of the Law They must therefore be reconciled which they may by saying that faith only doth properly justifie us before God and Works do justifie our faith to be a true faith for as much as true faith is productive of good works for we abhor those mens conceit who imagine that faith may suffice a man though he live ill and have no good works Or 2. By saying that good works do evidence our justification Aquinas confesseth that works in c. 3. ad Gal. are not the cause that any man is just before God but they are rather manifestations of Righteousnesse and Justification Certainly Abraham was justified in the sight of God before he offered up his son Isaac which is the foundation of Saint James's speech Papists are so much convinced of this that to evade Protestant Doctrine at least seemingly they invent a distinction of a first and second justification from that they exclude all works and attribute it only to faith and the other is not properly personal justification 8. Inst Prayer to Saints The Angel that delivered from all evils blessed the Children Gen. 48. Answ 1. Here is no mention of Saints much lesse of prayer to them not so much as an implicite hint of such a thing for I suppose Jacob was not of the mind of the Grecian Daemon worshippers who said it mattered not whether they called the souls of the defunct angells or gods 2. By Angel is meant Jesus Christ the Angell of the Covenant Mal. 3.1 who is true God and he who delivered Jacob out of all his evils Thus both Jewish and Christian Expositors understand it 3. I think you mistooâ— this for the latter part of the verse which Papists urge to prove invocation of Saints But seeing you doe not urge it I shall not at present answer it 9. Inst Prayer for the dead It is an holy and wholsome cogitation to pray for the dead 2 Maccab 12. A. 1. This book is not Apostolicall nor part of the Canon of Scripture the Hebrews keepers of the book of the Old Testament received it not as is generally confest and though some fathers commend this and other books of this nature to be read yet they commended them onely as profitable Treatises not as Canonicall Scriptures and therefore advise men to reade them with discretion and prudence Christ though he gives testimony to the Prophets and Psalms he gives none to these or in speciall to this besides there are divers things in this render it suspected 1. The Author of this book supposed to be Josephus professeth it to be onely an abridgement of Jason of Cyrene c. 2.23 and the Holy Ghost is not used to Epitomize profane Histories 2. He makes an excuse for himself and such a one as the holy Writers never used nor becomes a Divine History c. 15. 38. Answ 2. The Text you urge may be divers wayes oppugned 1. The words are not rightly translated by you the Greek is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A holy and pious cogitation therefore he made expiation or satisfaction by sacrifice for the dead to free them from sin the words are not to be read without a middle distinction Vatablus who includes these words Piam et sanctam cogitationem in a parenthesis refers them neither to prayer nor sacrifice but to the resurrection of the dead saying it s an holy and pious thought to think that the bodies of them who have deserved well of their Country should rise again and not perish for ever 2. Supposing Sacrificing or Prayer seeing you will have it so for the dead were lawfull yet as to these persons it cannot be allowed For first they were Idolaters slain for their idolatry verse 40. Dying for any thing appears to the contrary in a mortall sin 2. They were not in Purgatory the onely place from whence Prayers bring souls for at this time Purgatory had not so much as an imaginary existence 3. Supposing Prayer for the dead and holy and wholesome cogitation and might be proved so from this place yet how can we be said to maintain a Doctrine clean contrary and opposite to that which the Apostles in plain and formall tearms expressed Though here be expressed the opinion of Judas or Jason of Cyrene yet neither Judas nor Jason were the Apostles of Christ nor yet any of the Prophets of God the last of whom was Malachi It is evident that you want spirituall proofs for your charitable devotion else you would not have urged against us those books you know we account Apocriphal and not bring one syllable of Scripture you must first prove unto us the Divine authority of the books of Maccabees and then prove our contrarietie to Scriptures in dissenting from them till then you beg the question 10. Inst Extream unction Is any body sick amongst you let him bring in the Priests of the Church and pray over him anoynting him with oyl in the name of our Lord. Jam. 5. Answ 1. Here are not the plain and formal tearms of extream unction nor do I think that you read them in any ancient Author the word Extream shews your extram abuse of this ordinance as Lorichius otherwise as much for this supposed Sacrament as any o-any other clearly demonstrates in these words Abusus vocbuli est quod dicitur extrema unctio c. It s an abuse of the word to call it extream unction For it s not a Sacrament of dying men but of those who are sick not relateing to their burial but conducing to their recovery Whence it was that in the primitive Church many when they were anointed did recover health And even at this day many wâ—uld be healed if this Sacrament were rightly used I observe that these Popish Authors who pretend to follow antiquity do avoid this tearm Extream calling this supposed Sacrament either sacramentum unctionis aegrotorum as Lorichius or simply Cass consult Art 22. p. 985. unctio infirmorum as Cassander who also shews that its of use for the sick in order to their recovery of bodily health 2. This text of the Apostle proves not your extream unction It speaks of that miraculous anointing which Saint Mark mentions Mark 6.13 and which Bellarmine saith was a sign used in miraculous healing of the diseased your Rhemists imply that it had a miraculous medicinal vertue to heal diseases which you will hardly say of your extream oyl Cajetan expresly denies that this text of James Cajet in cap. 5. Jac. proves extream unction and proves it by divers reasons 1. Saint James saith not if any man be sick unto death but absolutely if any man be sick 2. The proper effect of Saint James unction is recovery of health If he speaks of remission of sins onely conditionally whereas extream unction is not given but at the point of death and directly tends as its form stands to the remission of sins besides Saint James requires that many Elders be called to one sick person
and originally in God as Lord paramount of all creatures but not incommunicable for as he hath bestowed the power of governing Kingdomes and Common-wealths on Kings and Magistrates Prov. 8.15 Rom. 13.1 So the power of remitting sins on the Apostles and their successours yet men having these powers by way of gift and participation may not be said to govern or to forgive sins but as Gods substitutes and delegates suitably to the condition of their inferiority and subjection Reply 1. Gods power as to some of its acts is incommunicable His power of Creation is naturally in him and incommunicable to any creature so is his damning and saving power whereby he makes one a vessell of wrath another of mercy of this nature is his power of remitting sin It is God that justifies and it was a serious question though wrongly applied of the Scribes Who can forgive sins but God only Mark 2.7 others cannot do it and therefore Bed doth hereby prove Christs divinitâ— saith he Solus Dâ—us remittit peccata c. Bed apud Lyran ib i.e. God onely remits sins and the Son of man hath power of remiting sin therefore God and the Son of man are the same thus the Son of man by his divinity doth remit sins but by his humanity he is enabled to dy for sinners For the clearing of this I observe that remission of sins may be considered two wayes viz. 1. As it is a judiciall act and denotes formall pardon Thus it belongs to the supreme Lord against whom the crâ—mes are directly committed and his absolution is onely satisfactory to the offender as Soto on Rom. 8.33 very well shewes 2. As it is a Declaration of that act already passed by the supreme Lord. As in human Courts the judiciall act or formall absolution belongs to the Judge but the declaration of this is in the crier 'T is thus in the Church The Church is the crier but God the Judge his act is an act of power and authority whereby Pardon is formally obtained but so is not theirs This is confessed by the most noted Schoolmen Lombard is clear for it Ita operatur sacerdos Evangelicus c. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 18. F. The Evangelicall Priest saith he doth so act and judge in the absolving from sin as the legall Priest did on them that had the Leprosie Now its evident that the Priest did not make them clean but onely upon Gods cleansing of them declared them to be clean nor is this the judgement of him onely but of many other Schoolmen and Lombard proves it from Hierom and Ambrose Now if the Church of Rome not content with the act of declaring sin pardoned do in a Pharasaicall pride as Lombard speaks claim to it self a judiciall power which Ambrose calls jus potestatis then it s certainly true that the Romane Church claims a power that belongs onely to God But it s certainly true that this Church claims a power the Trent Councill is clear and full for it Concil Trid sess 14. cap. 6. Can. 9. ap Binnium So that she Anathematizeth whosoever shall say that is no judiciall act but onely an office of pronouncing and declaring that sins are pardoned to the penitent sinner This is that we charge upon your Church as an hereticall opinion What you say in answer to our Objection I know not whether it be in vindication of your Church or in meer opposition to us you have so darkly folded up your opinion that I know not what it is You say The successours of the Apostles have power to forgive sins as Gods substitutes and delegates suitably to the condition of their inferioritie and subjection You should have told us what this suitable power is for the power your Church claims is not a suitable power for her even in the judgement of your Schoolmen And if you deny her that you confess with us that she claims a power that belongs onely to God Your allusion is nothing unless you can prove that as God hath bestowed power of governing on Kings so hath he given the Apostles and their successours the power of formall remission 4. Objection THe fourth Objection is The Roman Church derogateth from Christs Mediatorship making it common to Saints and Angels Answ 1. Things that are like have eftsoons the same denomination so Kings and Judges are called Gods for some resemblance betwixt Gods power and theirs Psal 81.1.6 The Roman Church then observing in the intercession of Saints and Angels a certain likeness to the mediation of Christ they being both expressions of charitable and good desires for others may not unfitly call them alike by the name of mediation Reply 1. That things that are like have sometime the same denomination none will question but the ground of this is not alwayes likness or resemblance as you seem to assert different things altogether unlike may have the same denomination whilest those that have some likeness cannot The children of God who have his Image and are partaker of the divine nature are not to be called Gods though Magistrates are Psal 82. There are two reasons or grounds whereupon the names of God or Christ may be given to creatures 1. Relation the persons stand in unto God and Christ thus Judges are called Gods and Moses is said to be a God to Pharaoh Exod. 7.1 because Judges and Moses stood in Gods stead were his Vice-royes his Ambassadours 2. Divine authoritie seconding the relation I have said ye are Gods and all of you the children of the most High c. Psal 82.6.105 15. God saith of his children Touch not my Christs Now according as God gives these names to creatures so may we provided that we give them 1. Onely to those to whom he gives them 2. That we give them not to any as properly belonging to them but onely as metaphoricall expressions 3. Nor ordinarily but upon speciall and extraordinary occasions and with allusions to Gods own words Against these the men of Lystra offended when they called Paul and Barnabas Gods Act. 14.1 It s not lawfull for us to give the Title of God to Magistrates ordinarily in our speaking to them nor to say to others ye are Jehovah or Christ or the Evangelicall Priest or Mediator for the reasons now implied The Apostle expresly saith There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.5.2 If likeness ground a denomination yet it remains doubtfull what likeness doth it There is nothing in the world but hath some kind of likeness to God yet you may not call every thing God though it may be this was the manner of the Heathens deifying of every creature till it came to herbes 3. The likeness betwixt the intercession of Saints and Angels supposing these to interceed though you prove it not and mediation of Christ is so little that it cannot be thought a sufficient ground for this denomination What ever you can say of the intercession of Saints
Tradition Hence it was that some Jesuits of Ratisbone asserted it to be an Article of Faith That Toby's dog wagged his tail and your self say page 65. All points of Faith being equally founded on Gods Revelation are fundamentall and substantiall which Revelation is by the Word or Tradition Now I conceive you will at least urge Tradition for Gods Predetermination and the Virgins impeccable or sinless Conception 2. The determination of your Church in some Councell or by some Pope Extrao Commun l. 3. tit 12. c. 2. apud Azor. part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. Bin Tom. 4. p. 743. Now it s most evident that Sixtus the Fourth did decree them Hereticks who affirmed the Virgin Mary to be conceived in sin Concil Trin. sess 5. Concil Basil sess 36. apud Bin. though I deny not but he also disallowed the preaching of her purity because of the too great zeal in the Preachers of it Upon this decree of Sixtus The Councell of Trent having declared the universality of Originall sin in regard of persons doth make a formall exception of the Virgin Mary But before either that Pope or Councell The Councell of Basil is most clear for it decreeing it to be A pious Doctrine and agreable to Ecclesiasticall worship the Catholick Faith right reason and the Holy Scriptures and that it shall not be lawfull for any one to preach or teach any thing contrary to it nor is the other point of lesser concernment than this 2. Those that hold the opinions of the Dominicans are by you counted Hereticks for the former opinion they are judged to make God the Author of sin with Florinus or being a force upon the will with Origen for these are the inferences you raise from our Doctrine of Predetermination nor are you more charitable to us in regard of the other opinion of the Virgins Conception See the above mentioned Constitutions of Sixtus the Fourth where he brands the Dominicans with Heresie now Heresie is a rejection not of a mere opinion but of a point of Faith 3. If they be onely School nicities why do your Priests so much instill at least the latter of them into simple peoples ears as a matter of Faith why do they injoyn the observation of an holy day for her immaculate Conception Why doe they indanger Christs honour by making his mother equall with him in impeccability and that by a School nicitie which if such might be well rejected Secondly you Answer It is as untrue that generall and approved Councells have contradicted one another in matters of Faith or oecumenicall Decrees they have indeed talked and discoursed contrary yea later Counsels have altered and changed Lawes and Constitutions of Government made and established by former but this only proves that Counsels admit a liberty and freedom to debate matters of Religion and that what was once good and convenient may prove afterwards circumstances varying bad and inconvenient which no way prejudiceth belief Reply 1. You speak something fearfully as if you were afraid to lie yet would not prejudice your Church by acknowledging the truth You say They have talked and discoursed contrary and that because They havâ— freedome to debate matters of Religion yet they do not contradict one another in matters of Faith Here is strange stuffe yet may well serve a credulous Papist But tell me if the determinations of former Councells be unalterable as to Religion as it must be if they be infallible How come later Councells to have a liberty to debate those matters which have formerly been determined or to discourse and talk contrary to them Is it because former Decrees are obscure or later Councels ignorant or that these later Councels meet oneâ—y to see who is the best disputant amongst them Nay rather according to truth is it not in order to the disquisition of truth and to a Decree contrary to former Decrees if they be found faulty this seems granted by a Councel which saith That the Church doth propound divers Concil Senen apud Bin. Tò 4. part 2. pag. 150. and sometimes contrary decrees It cannot be only in order to ratification of the former decree for the former Councels infallibility is sufficient for that Or if the succeeding Councels ratification were useful it ought to be given without talking and discoursing contrary meerly upon the former debate and establishment So then their talk is either vain jangling to no purpose or it tends to alteration and amendment of that which hath been formerly decreed according to Augustines speech mentioned by you That often the precedent general Councels are mended by the following But you say They have altered and changed Laws and constitutions of Governments made and established by former and a little after Councels admit a liberty to debate matters of religion and that what was once goâ—d and convenient may prove afterwards circumstances varying bad and inconvenient Reply 1. If by Constitutions of Government you understand Government it self this will not agree with what you said against Calvin That Christians generally maintained and professed that the Government of the Church was unalterable by any mortal But if you mean onely such rules as concern the Execution of Government I say the alterations made by Councels have not been only of these nor does Augustin intend such things as will appear to any that considers the place you cite for it a Book of his against the Donatists in which his main drift is to prove against them that Baptisme was but to be administred once Now whereas the Donatists objected that Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk in a Councell did determine the lawfulnesse of re-baptization Augustine answers That the Scriptures cannot be doubted of but the writings of Bishops may be reprehended by others more prudent yea Provincial Councels must give way to General and the former general Councels themselves may be amended by the latter 2. It s most evident that the Alterations of succeeding Councels have been about matters of faith I suppose these are matters of faith 1. The Popes Supremacy his universal Headship and Lordship over other Patriarcks and Councels Bellarmine calls this one main pillar of Catholick Religion and one of the chiefe Heads of your faith for this you urge Councels yet there are many Councels contradict this as Concil Carthag 3. Can. 26. Concil Nic. 1. Can. 6. Concil Constantin 3. Can. 36. Concil Basil Sess 2. Where it is decreed that the Pope ought to be obedient to the Councel which decree hath beene freely imbraced and maintained by the French Papists against the Trentists 2. Communion under one kind is decreed by your latest Councels yet Cassander tells us that Communion in both kinds was by our Lords institution Apostolical tradition publick and perpetual custome of all times and further was confirmed by the Decrees of Popes and Councels 3. Worship of Images is established by later Councels yet the Councel of Eliberis Can. 36 and the seventh General Councel of
and every thing in it and consequently that the creature doth fully represent the divine Essence and yet the Scripture tells us that none can see God and live 2. It s untrue that in seeing the divine Essence you see all its effects Aquin. 1. part 7.12 Art 8. per tot cajet ibid. Aquinas demonstrates the contrary by the example of the Angels who see the divine Essence yet are ignorant of future contingencies and the thoughts of the hearts and he further shewes that it s not necessary that he that sees a glass should see all things in the glass unless he perfectly comprehend the glass in his sight Now there is no creature that doth perfectly comprehend God Cyril excellently sets this forth of the Angels speaking of God Cyril Hieros Catech. 7. p. 169. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whose face the Angels do perpetually see in heaven but they see every one according to the measure of his own degree but the sublime splendor of the fatherly vision its lawfull onely for the Son and the Holy Ghost to behold Doe you think that the Saints see in God the thoughts of mens hearts yet many prayers are no more but the inward groans of the heart if you say they doe then according to Aquinas they arrogate that which is proper to God if not then they see not all the efects in God and you have not given us any distinction of effects visible or not visible 3. Object You say it will be opposed If Saints and Angels have not mens prayers before God proposeth them he knoweth them beforehand whence may be inferd that their intercession is needless Answ 1. Gods foresight of mens prayers maks not the intercession of Saints and Angels any way unprofitable and fruitless inasmuch as the effect intended thereby is not to better Gods understanding but to obtain from his blessed Will mercy and compassion c. Reply 1. The Objection doth not refer to Gods foresight meerly which may be from all eternitie He foreseeing all things before they were but to Gods actuall receiving of them from us and so proposing them to the Saints Now I assert that this doth make the intercession of Saints and Angels unprofitable yea no intercession For first according to Papists the reason why we look for an Intercessor is this we dare not come to God immediately hence is that Court-like instance and frequently urged of a subject who not daring to come into the presence of the King immediately presents his Petitions to some of his Courtiers and by him to the King But here forgetting your instance you first present your Petitions to the King making him your Letter carrier to his Courtiers and this say you for this end that his Courtiers may move his goodness which how rationall it is let the simplest of your Synagogue judge 2. According to your Rhemists the property of a Mediator or Intercessor is to offer up our Prayers to God Now he that offers up any thing to another doth not immediately receive his offering from him to whom he offers but from him for whom he offers To say Saints receive Prayers from God that they may offer them to God is very harsh and unscripturall language Reply 2. If our Prayers go immediately to God and then to Saints and they immediately obtain from Gods blessed Will mercy and compassion from us What room hath Christ for his intercession or how are Saints Mediatores ad Mediatorem It s difficult to set up Saints as Intercessors and not to nullifie the intercession of Christ Jesus But you urge Princes have often notice of subjects imprisonment and condemnation yet seldom give reprives of inlargements but at the intreaty of some friend or favorite Reply 1 Princes do not usually receive and deliver Petitions directed to their Favourites that thereby their favourites may move them to compassion 2. Princes often give reprieves or inlargements at the entreaty of the imprisoned or condemned 3. The Apostle tells us clearly who is that favourite that receiving our Petitions doth procure reprieves or enlargements for guiltie sinners viz. Jesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2.1 2. You answer Men are wished yea warranted to pray for one another 1 Tim. 2. notwithstanding God hath the foresight of their wants and necessities Reply 1. For shame do not thus fight with your own shadow what Protestant doubts of Gods foresight of Prayers or who asserts that Prayers are for the bettering of Gods understanding 2. When men pray one for another they have not the sight of your supercelestiall Vtopian looking-glass but being by their friends acquainted with their wants they are intreated to joyn with them in seeking Gods mercy through Jesus Christ 3. You answer Davids adulterie and guilt of blood were in the sight of God unpardoned till after a low humiliation and an hearty acknowledgement of his fault 1 King 12. Reply This being nothing to purpose shall pass unanswered till you can make it appear more materiall 5. Objection THe fifth Objection is The Roman Church entertaineth divisions and contrariety in Religion The Dominicans maintaining a Physicall predetermination the Jesuits a Morall those that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Originall sin these that she was prevented by Grace and conceived in the same And if this be not enough to infer contrarietie in Religion several Councells have contradicted each other Answ 1. Not every difference but a difference in point of Faith makes division and contrariety in Religion The Dominicans and Jesuits onely quarrell about Opinions it being not matter of belief that Gods Predestination is Physicall or Morall or that the blessed Virgin was conceived in Originall sin or grace These are meer School nicities and not at all destructive to that Vnity which Catholicks so much reverence in Religion Reply 1. You deal deceitfully with your followers and us in making your many divisions to seem few and your great ones small Are the differences in the Roman Church only two viz. about Predetermination and the Virgin Mary Whosoever reads Azorius's Moralls but especially Bellarmines Controversies shall find scarce one point of divinity wherein there is not difference amongst Papists Some have numbered 300. different Opinions of Papists out of Bellarmines Controversies and those about Points controverted between them and us Now if the differences between them and us be about Points of Faith as it seems they are else we could not be accounted Heretical and not meer Opinions their is no question but theirs are of the same nature there being no Opinion of the Church but hath some one or more Papists joyning with us in opposing it 2. You might have done well to have informed us what are Points of Faith and what Opinions for these Points you mention seem to be points of Faith For first those things that constitute a point of Faith with you agree to them As first its authority from the Word of God which you branch into Scriptrre and