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
other Gospels he does not contradict me in my conclusion which was comparative to the credit of the Church And where he compares the harmonie of this Cospel with other parts of Scripture he doth not conclude contradictorily to me who onely instituted the compare of it with other Gospels It is necessary therfore to set down my words which were these Again the harmony of it with other Gospels hath more in it to perswade faith than the credit of the Church So that all his disputation as to this is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench because it comes not up to a contradiction to my terms And besides if the difficulties about the agreement were so great their infallibility pretended should have cleared them Either we might have saving health notwithstanding those breaches or else the plaister was defective or else there is want of care in the Physitian Or it may be as he said Plus periculi a medico quaâ— a morbo but let them take my own termes in their ordinary sence and then his assaults will lose their force before they come home to the point For what if one who intended a supposititious Gospel would take care not to contradict the others Is not therefore the harmonie of this Gospel with others a better perswasive than the credit of the Church For the Argument from the Church is more extrinsical and such Arguments are in kind less rational And if they say the Church hath an infallible assistance it beggs the question And what infringement of the harmony is it if there be many things related by St. Matthew and not related at all by many others For so they would not find an harmony of the other Gospels and this according to Mr. Cressy would make this Gospel more credible because more things are here expressed and it may be some material But surely to relate circumstances and not to relate circumstances namely the same makes no contradiction in diverse subjects if one did say these circumstances were and another did say these circumstances were not this would contradict but not to say is not to say not For not to say is negative ex parte actus but to say not is negative ex parte objecti which makes the contradiction in diverse subjects Again what if there seem to be any variety betwixt the Gospel of St. Matthew and other parts of Scripture he should have said and other Gospels if he would have spoken ad idem in the History of the generations must Faustus the Manichaean be gratified in honour to the Roman Church If there be any such variety the Roman will have the worst of it for his foundation lies principally in that Gospel And this cannot be salved by the Church because the Church is in question But he will not spare the Gospel of St. Matthew as if the Roman Church needed it not and therefore he tells us of a disagreement in the first chap. of St. Matthew's Gospel with the 2. b. of the Kings the 8th ch about Ioram's begetting Ozias Ioram begat Ozias c. Well if the Roman calls children Nephews more reasonably may the Hebrews call real Nephews children which are as minor sons as he said And so Ioram might be said to begâ—t Ozias who was his Abnepos Or will not Salmerons conceit please them that this was so ordered in an allegory to typifie that as 3 Kings are excluded in the History so those that deny the doctrine of the Trinity and deprive themselves of the three Theological vertues do deserve to be excluded salvation But since it seems it was the spirit of Gods purpose to put the account in tessarodecades it was necessary that in one of them three should be left out And convenient it was that the omission should be in the second that so that curse upon Ahabs family should be here exemplified those three Kings being of his posterity somewhat as Dan in the seventh of the Revel is not numbred because that Tribe did go away from God in Idolatry and did mingle with the Gentiles as is observed Another difficultie he urgeth about the number of the Generations wherein one seems to be wanting you shall finde them to be only fortie one which by the account of thrice fourteen Generations should make fortie two Ans Our question is about the harmonie of the Gospel in the point of doctrine cheifly this concerns historie of fact 2. We have no reason to thinke that because we cannot comprehend all the mysteries in scripture and the waies of the jewish acount there should be any falsitie herein Tertullians ' rule is good Cedat Curiositas fidei 3. Stapulensis it seems said that in old copies it is found thus Iosias genuit Ioaechim Ioaechim genuit Iechoniam and these two are comprehended under one name Since Iechonias is called Iehoiachin 4º Regum ch 24 ver 6. whose father Iehoiachin was the father and the sonne are confounded by the similitude of the names in the greek as some note Another difficultie he urgeth about the 27 of St. Matthew ver 9. Then was fulfilled that which was said by the prophet Ieremie whereas the Prophet Ieremie hath no such matter in him What harmonie appeareth here indeed in the Prophet Zechary there is in substance what St. Matthew said Ans An errour of the scribe cannot discanonize the book in a point of circumstance if it were so as it might be if the Gospel was first written in Hebrew for then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might easily be read for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Ier in short and for Ieremie for by the hand namely of the Prophet which is the usuall form of expression in this kind And also the Syriack expresseth it in the same manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the hand of the Prophet Or it may be 2. As some note they were wont to put severall books together and to name all by the first So Ieremie being first all were reckoned by him and so that which is said by Zecharie is attributed to Ieremie too being the first And so we know that in the old Testament books are called by the first words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 3. However this agrees with the Scripture in generall though not particularly in termes with Ieremie His other exceptions are about the difference of St. Peter's denying his master which compared with other Evangelists seemes to differ in very many Circumstances and then also in the last chap. He saies there are some Circumstances about the resurrection which St. Matthew differs from the rest in Ans These are spoken by him in generall and Generalia non agunt as it is said neither do they make an action And then 2. Somewhat may be diverse which is not adverse And what one sayes another doth not denie If another omission did make a contradiction to what one affirmes then if St. Ierom had called the Bishop of Rome the universall Bishop which yet he doth not then St. Austin
the Pope to be head of the Universal Church and therefore are they not compared ad idem Thirdly Is it determined in Scripture whether the Pope be Head of the Church or not You say it is for if you say it is not you are all lost Well if it be determined by Scripture then consequently it is determined in Scripture that the King is not and so this your Controversie is one of those which is decided and concluded negatively in or by Scripture So this exception against us doth not thrive Another point of this kind you make in your eleventh Number about the Canon of Scripture your Argument seems to be thus that we should know the Canon is necessary we do not know it by Scripture therefore by the Church Is it not thus you cannot make your matter shorter without any detriment to you And therefore we answer first as at first which you give us the occasion to put you in mind of that if the Church were Infallible Judge of all Canonical books yet would it not follow from hence that it should be Infallible Judge in all points of Faith and Manners which you would fain have as very â—seful for you unlesse caâ—â—ally for we might suppose more assistance to the Church in this particular then in other cases since also when that is made sure that there are the books of Scripture we should look for no other directions for Life and Salvation but this Therefore if you argue that because it is Judge Infallible of Canonical books it is Judge of all matters you do not rightly proceed from a particular You are in that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore you do not conclude in your first Universality Secondly We are not to be assured by Divine Faith that there are Canonical books from the authority of the Church and therefore is not the Church the Infallible Judge herein We must beleeve them to be Canonical by their own Authority otherwise we shall never believe them to be so so that you see we deny the Assumption and we say we may know the Canonical books by Scripture we have no other Divine Authority to know them by They bear witnesse of themselves they carry their own light which we may see them by as we see the Sun by its own light For let me put you to this Dilemma either the Scripture is to be believed for it self or the Church is to be believed for it self If the Scripture be to be believed for it self then have we our cause if the Church be to be believed for it self then must we know this by a Revelation beside Scripture which your Bellarmine disputes against in the beginning of his Controversies and whether that Revelation be not Anabaptistical and more uncertain then the word of God judge you And I pray is it not more fiâ— that the Scripture should be believed in its own cause then the Church but if you say that the Authority of the Church is evidenced by Scripture concerning it then that is to be believed for itself as towards the Church and why not then other parts of it Thirdly If the Church be the Judge Infallible of Canonical books how came Saint Hierome to be repugnant to the Church in the debate about Books Apocryphal as you know and may see by your Bellarmin in his second Book De verbo Dei cap. 9. amongst which Apocryphal books the Maccabees are numbred to be by him accounted such and therefore Saint Jerome did not in his Latin Edition translate them and then let S. Jerom's authority justifie Lâ—ther upon your principles for you account the Maccabees to be as well Canonical as you and we do the Apocalyps That the Scripture is silent of its own Canon and that we cannot prove a book to be infallibly Canonical by it self without begging the question hath litle of iudiciousness in it for how do we see light how do we prove first and indemonstrable principles how do we prove that which we apprehend by natural light after this manner is the understanding irradiated to see the authority of Scripture in it and by it well and how do we prove the Church to be infallible by it without begging the question therefore you must come about to Scripture And again if you prove the Church to be infallible Judge herein because the Scripture is not you beg the question who are to dispute not I who am to answer Your twelfth number goes upon a false supposition at least in part of it namely that we are bound to believe that the Gospel of Saint Matthew was written by him as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark We deny it We are bound indeed to believe that the Gospel of St. Matthew and St. Mark as we distinguish them are the word of God but we are not bound to believe that they were written by them It is no part or duty of my faith to believe the Penman of any part of Scripture save onely so far as it is declared in the body of Scripture for it is not Scripture because Saint Matthew wrote it but Saint Matthew wrote it as being inspired that it was the word of God in the matter of it If then your discourse goes upon the matter of it it was answered before if upon the title it is not allowed to be de fide or any point of faith that such was writer of any piece of Scripture And whereas you urge that some have denied this Gospel and some or other have denied other books to be Canonical how then shall we end this Controversie or others about the Canon by Scripture I answer And do not Hereticks deny your Church to be infallible will you therefore quit your opinion So then either this argument is not good against us or it is also good against you Secondly If Hereticks reject some books we may be disposed by the authority of the Catholick Church to our faith of them by their own authority And this seems to be as much as Saint Austin would have us to attribute to the Church in this particular as we have his advice in his second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 8. where he says in Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam-plurimum sequatur authoritatem In Canonical Scriptures let him very much follow the authority of the Catholick Churches amonst which surely these are they which merited if you will construe it so to have Apostolick seats and to receive Apostolick Epistles Observe that he saith let him follow the authoritie very much which doth not conclude that we should wholly rely upon it and of the Catholick Churches in the plural not one only Then there are more Catholick Churches in his judgement and such are they which merited to have Apostolick Seas and Epistles then your Church onely is not to be called the Apostolique Sea And whereas afterward in this Church he doth reckon Apocryphall Books yet is
prove that we must not now work on Saturdayes You are to shew Texts in which this point is plainly set down for these Texts I called In place of these Texts you bring your own discourses Now according to your own opinion that Councils though general in their discourses out of Scripture may be forsaken by him who judgeth such discourses nothing so well grounded in the Text as the discourses for the contrary opinion are grounded in other Texts Hence you must needs give the Sabbatharians leave to reject these your discourses with far greater reason then you reject the discourses of Councils Whence then shall we have an infallible decision of this Controversie Your own Doctor Tayler in his defence of Episcopacy Pag. 100. writeth thus For that keeping of the Sunday in the New Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the primitive Disciples At Geneva they were once upon changing Sundayes Feast into Thursday to have shown their Christian Liberty If this were plainly set down in Scripture would not these your illuminated Brethren see it as well as you And you so often called upon for a plain Text instead of bringing infallible Texts bring nothing but a discourse of your own very fallible and proving nothing but a possibility of such a change To the far stronger Text for still keeping the Sabboth you say not a word My argument then as yet hath nothing like a satisfactory answer returned unto it 40. Of my 9th Number The second Controversie which I said could not clearly be decided by Scripture is about our lawful eating or not eating of that which is strangled clearly forbidden Act. 15. But because there may be some reasons alledged why this precept now obligeth no longer though I might insist that we seek for Texts and not for reasons I presse this argument no further having so great plenty of far more pressing arguments 41. Of my 10th Number A third Controversie not clearly decided for you by Scripture I briefly touched concerning the holding the King Head of the Church whom you according to plain Scripture determine to be still the Head of the Church though others hold it very far from being plain Scripture This Controversie must needs highly import that all the Members may have an assured knowledge of the Head by whom they are to be governed This point was before evident Scripture now it is no longer evident Scripture Your answer is first What is infallibly decided by Scripture will ever be so although we do not always find it Sir if you mean what is infallibly decided by evident Scripture is not alwayes to be found it is manifestly false This being against the very Nature of that which is evident when it is supposed to stand laid wide open before our eyes in the same words which made it before evident Scripture You add Secondly That you doe not say every point is Infallibly decided by Scripture because it is not at all decided Sir Is not this a necessary point and be not these your own words All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture and again What is not plainly set down in Scripture is hereby understood not to be necessary Grant these Principles false and the cause is mine If they be true this point being necessary must also be plainly decided by clear Scripture And when you aske me whether it be determined in Scripture that the Pope is head of the Church You forget that we do not teach as you do that all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture but we teach the quite contrary You that hold that on the one side the King is head of the Church and on the other side that all points necessary to Salvation be plainly set down in Scripture you I say must shew me plain Scripture for what you say in a point so necessary as it is for so many millions to know so capital a point as their head is If for such a point as this to which so many were obliged to swear you have no plain Text of Scripture I pray tell us no more hereafter that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture I adde that either you must be far from having any evident Text for this point in Scripture or your most illuminated Calvin could not see that which was evident for he writing on the 7th of Amos saith of our English Church They were blasphemous when they called him Henry the Eighth chief Head of the Church under Christ Of my 11th and 12th Numb 42. A fourth Controversie not decidable by any clear Text of Scripture is which be the true Books of Scripture which not about which we still differ mainly And it is evident no Text can decide this Controversie Of this in general I have spoken fully That for which I repeated it over again is to presse particularly the impossibility that there is to prove by Scripture against the Manicheans that St. Matthew his Gospel is the true uncorrupted Word of God That it is impossible to know it to be Saint Mathewes Gospel you your self confess holding it in plain termes a point of no necessitie to believe this yet sure I am that your learned Brethren in their conference at Ratisbone dared not to deny that it was an Article of faith to believe Saint Matthewes Gospel to have beâ—n written by Saint Matthew And I believe your own Brethren will be scandalized at this your Opinion But before you can goe forward to shew it impossible to prove by Scripture that Saint Matthewes Gospel is the same uncorrupted Word of God I am necessitated to Answer what ye Object by the way 43. You say then first That if the Church were infallible Judge of all Canonical Books yet would it not follow from hence that it should be infallible Iudge in all points of Faith unless causally for we might suppose more assurance to the Church in this particular then in other cases Is it so good Sir Can you suppose a point upon which all depends to be held by all as infallibly true without shewing such a point to be clearly contained in Scripture Why this spoils all Your onely shift to avoid the necessitie of an infallible Church is still to say that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture and that if any point be not plainly set down in Scripture it hereby appeareth not to be necessary And will you 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 only authority of the Church That we are universally to hear the Church hath many pregnant places in Scripture as I shall shew at large C 4. But that we are to learn this one point and none but this onely from the infallible authority of the Church hath no colour nor shadow of Scripture or any thing like Scripture You must therefore ground this
the world Good Sir in what year of our Lord was it that I did say that this was certainly trueâ— Did not I say so this very last year which was above twelve hundred years since Saint Jeroms time If there were one Hebrew copy then what is that to our purpose now Can we go and confer our Translations of Saint Matthew and see how far they agree with that Original copy which St. Jerom in his dayes did see in one only place of the world Shew me so much as one Hebrew copy now extant in the whole world of sufficient credit to ground an infallible assent If after more then a thousand years loss of all Original copies Munster or any other private man obtrude us an Hebrew Original which hath lain all this while God knowes where by what Evidence will that appear Gods infallible and uncorrupted Word All your shifts will not here help you 48. You would shift first by asking how the Latine Interpretation came to be Authentique I Answer Because it was accepted for authentique and thus declared to be so by the Church which Church when she admitted it was fully satisfied that it agreed with the Original And this she knew by Tradition from the Church of former Ages This Tradition doth not certifie you because you hold it fallible And therefore most certainly I certifie you that you will never believe Saint Matthewes Gospel with an infallible assent until you believe the Church infallible in her traditions Your second shift is this Gospel might possibly at the first be written in Greek Good Sir tell me whether onely possibilities grounded upon conjectures be sufficient to ground an infallible assent And here give me leave by the way to shew you once more the evident unevidence which is in that light by which you see Saint Lukes Gospel for example to be Gods true word and so of all other Scriptures The Greek Copy of Saint Luke you see as evidently as the Sun to be Gods true Word by reading of it and yet this great Evidence is so little different from that Evident inevidence which you call a Possibilitie that Saint Matthews Greek Copy is Gods true and uncorrupted Word that you cannot see with your irradiated understanding whether this inevidence be not to the full as good as that Evidence and that it may not as well ground an infallible assent as that Again how come you to hold it a meer Possibility that Saint Matthews Gospel was written in Greek for if the Greek Text of Saint Matthew be as truly Original as that of Saint Luke your irradiated understanding must needs by its Light see it to be Gods Word as well as you see the Sun by its Light why then do you venture no further then to esteem it a possibilitie Is it a mere possibilitie that St. Lukes Gospel is Gods uncorrupted word Now let us see how slender your Conjecture is though I confess it to be better in my judgement then the light manifesting to you infallibly the truth of Saint Lukes Gospel Let us see I say how slender your Conjecture is to prove that possibly Saint Matthews Gospel might be written first in Greek because the Greek Copy interpreteth the Hebrew word Emmanuel which if it were written in Hebrew needed not any interpretation A pittiful weak Conjecture And this Dart is no sooner raised above your head with weak hand but it falls with a strong hand upon your head again The Greek Copy translateth Hebrew words therefore say you it is no Translation but it is an Original Sir it is manifest that Translations of Scripture usually tell us the Hebrew words first and then the Translation of it So Genesis 31.48 Galaad id est tumulus testis Galaad that is the witnesse heap And Gen. 35.18 Benoni id est filius doloris mei Benjamin id filius dextrae And Exod. 12. Phase id est transitus And Exodus 26. Manhu quod significat quid est hoe By these and divers such places you see how familiarly Translatours tell you the Hebrew word and then the Interpretation of it No prophane mean authoritie would upon so slight a conjecture as this is be rejected and contradicted Much lesse if he made himself an eye-witnesse of what he said Yet you reject Saint Jerom though he saith he did see a copy of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes and you reject him though all the Fathers writings extant stand on his side and this upon a most slender conjecture of your own which would have made another man more wisely conjecture the quite contrary and say this copy Translateth Ergo it is a Translation Whence it evidently appears how little you care either for the single or for the unanimous consent of Eminent Fathers But this being a point onely to bee tried by the Testimony of Antiquitie your Cause is lost without some good Authours can be found for you Your third shift is in place of giving a Solution to make an Objection asking Why our Latine Translation was made Authentique if the Church had made the Greeke Authentique I Answer that I know of no body who told you That the Greeke Translation was made Authentique by the Church Neither Greeke nor Latine can be Authentique but by the Church because the Hebrew Original being lost we cannot know how farre either Greek or Latine Translation agreeth with the Original but by the infallible Tradition of the Church you who reject this cannot know possibly how far translations be Gods uncorrupted word for as you say they are only so far Gods uncorrupted Word as they agree with the Original But you know not how far they agree with the Original Ergo you know not how far they be Gods word Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the Harmony with the other Gospels Sir If any man intended to make a supposititious Gospel do you not think he would take care not to contradict the others But what harmony can there be found in these many things related by Saint Matthew and not related at all by any others Yea one of the greatest difficulties against Saint Matthews Gospel is to shew that it exactly agreeth with other Scriptures from the beginning to the ending And to be the briefer I will onely instance in some places of the beginning and ending omitting all the rest In the very first Chapter Saint Matthew tells us that Ioram did beget Ozias And yet out of the fourth Book of Kings which your Bible is pleased to call the Second Book it is manifest that Ioram begat Ochozias C. 8. And that Ochozias did beget Ioas C. 11. And that Ioas begat Amasias C. 12. and this Amasias begat Azarias C. 14. who is called here in Saint Matthew Ozias I ask then how cometh Saint Matthew to say Ioas begat Ozias who was born three Generations after him And being that these three Generations hapned between the time of David and the Captivity of Babylon they beeing added to
in writing Ans The former is I suppose proved more than they desire And to this we answer first if it be manifest that some part of Scripture is perished he might have told us which otherwise it seems it is not manifest No certain and manifest knowledge of the generall but by some particulars Secondly If any part be lost it is either of the old or of the new Testament if of the old the new hath the same matter as to sufficiency with clearnesse If of the new the old was able to make Timothy wise unto salvation And my Adversary might have known that not onely Mr. Chillingworth affirms that there is enough in one Gospel precisely necessary to salvation but also that their Bellarmin in the former B. and Ch. says that all the utilities of Scripture which here are rehearsed are found in the second Ep. of St. John If any book then be lost which we are not certain of nor they neither because for ought we know not defined by the Church yet by nis opinion namely Bellarmins that which remains may be profitable yea sufficient for those uses without an infallible Judge And again if any book of either Testament or any of both be lost this will redound to the prejudice of the Roman because they account that they onely are the Church and that the Church is the keeper of Divine truth then they have not faithfully preserved the truth of God and therefore if they were infallible in what they doe propose how should we trust them that what is delivered as truth they would keep since through their negligence they have let some book or books of Scripture perish Quis custodiet ipsos custodes But it may be they have kept traditions more faithfully Then surely the books of Scripture were lost with good discretion that it might reflect honor to the integrity of Traditions O sanctas Gentes quibus haec nascuntur in hortis Numina Your second Text to prove this is Heb. 4.12 Here is the text Num. 10. but where is the contradictory conclusion in terminis and that evidently that it is plainly set down in Scripture that the Scripture by it self alone is sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies c. Ans Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is The occasion of this began thus I was to dispute against the Judges authority to bind upon his own account as he might have noted had he pleased My argument was this the Judge determins by Scripture or not If not then he makes a new law and the authority of the Church in proposing Divine truths is immediate by the assistance of the Holy Ghost and not by disquisition which Stapleton denies in the beginning of his sixth generall Controversie if by Scripture then doth his determination bind by authority of Scripture whereof he is but a Minister This my Adversary says not a word unto Then ex abundanti I put this text to him to give him a check in the course of his exceptions against Scripture We do not say that the Scripture is formally a Judge but yet by this text we have so much said as amounts in effect to be a Judge internall by mediation of conscience which is more than their Judge infallible can pretend to And therefore as to the demand of a Contradictory Conclusion from hence I say this text was pertinently produced to that purpose I intended of it which was not that it should be a directory weapon against my Adversary but that it should be of use to cut off their Pleas against Scripture as that it is a dead letter not a living Judge it is living quick that it can do nothing it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it cannot decide controversies it is sharper than any two edged Sword As the law decides cases of right so it decides Controversies of faith And those points of faith pretended which are not contained therein it doth cut off If they say it cannot reach the Conscience What then can It is piercing to the dividing of soul and spirit joints and marrow If they say it cannot judge it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 criticall exactly judicative of the thoughts and notions of the heart But to come to the point he would have me shew that this sharpnesse is in order not onely to decide Controversies but also all necessary Controversies and to do this by it self alone And if not where is then your Contradictory Conclusion Ans It may decide Controversies and not necessary Controversies but if it decide necessary Controversies then to be sure it doth decide Controversies Our question is whether it determins necessary Controversies Yea neither are we bound to dispute the question because we said it not nor are we bound to make it good in their sense In our sense yet it doth sufficiently decide all necessary Controversies because it doth so plainly deliver things of necessary faith that there needs not be any decision of them by any inerrable Judge And then also secondly because if there be any question about necessary points the Scripture is the rule according to which it is to be determined And thirdly it doth in effect examine and judge in the inward man cases of opinion and of action which an externall Judge doth not as such because they are not known to him And in this regard I conceive that the heretick is said as before to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the law of God or of the Spirit of God in the law doth by his own Conscience condemn him in holding a materiall error against his own light Yea let them answer to their own Estius who upon the place saith that the Scripture hath the properties of God attributed to it and because God speaks to us by Scripture and therefore he saith Vt Gladius penetrat et laedit ita sermo Dei intuetur et punit Itaque significatur cognitio non nuda sed qualis est Judicis examinantis et cognoscentis ut puniat As the sword pierceth and woundeth so doth the word of God take notice and punish therefore is signified not a naked knowledge but such as is of a Judge examining and taking cognizance that it may punish Now because that which is not intended sometimes proves better than that which was intended as the rule is Melius est aliquando id quod est per accidens quam id quod est per se therefore may we draw an argument in form from hence thus That which judgeth and infallibly is an infallible Judge The Scripture judgeth so the text and Estius upon it and infallibly as they will confesse then the Scripture is an infallible Judge Now if it be an infallible Judge it is very reasonable that it should be an infallible Judge as to points necessary and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is no necessity of an externall infallible Judge as to determine faith for that is done by it there