Commandments and the possibility of keeping them the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them how far obedience is due to the Church Prayer for the Dead The cessation of the Old Law are all about Agenda and so cut off upon the first consideration 34. Secondly the Question touching Fundamentals is profitable but not Fundamental He that believes all Fundamentals cannot be damned for any Error in Faith though he believe more or less to be Fundamental than is so That also of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son of Purgatory of the Churches Visibility of the Books of the New Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitive Church until I see better reason for the contrary than the bare authority of men I shall esteem of the same condition 35. Thirdly These Doctrines that Adam and the Angels sinned that there are Angels good and bad that those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church are the word of God that S. Peter had no such primacy as you pretend that the Scripture is a perfect rule of Faith aad consequently that no necessary Doctrine is unwritten that there is no one Society or succession of Christians absolutely Infallible These to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by God and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so But not so necessary that every Man and Woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know them to be Divine Revelations and explicitely to believe them And for this reason these with innumerable other points are to be referred to the third sort of Doctrines above mentioned which were never pretended to have place in the Creed There remains one only point of all that Army you Mustred together reducible to none of these Heads and that is that God is and is a Remunerator which you say is questioned by the denial of merit But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the Doctrine of merit methinks with as much reason and more charity you might conclude That we hold merit because we hold this point Then that we deny this point because we deny merit Beside when Protestants deny the Doctrine of Merits you know right well for so they have declared themselves a thousand times that they mean nothing else but with David that their well doing extendeth not is not truly beneficial to God with our Saviour when they have done all which they are commanded they have done their duty only and no courtesie And lastly with S. Paul that all which they can suffer for God and yet suffering is more than doing is not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit or you must discharge their Doctrine of this odious consequence or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himself Nay you must either grant their denial of true Merit just and reasonable or you must say that our good actions are really profitable to God that they are not debts already due to him but voluntary and undeserved Favours and that they are equal unto and well worthy of Eternal Glory which is prepared for them As for the inconvenience which you so much fear That the denial of Merit makes God a giver only and not a rewarder I tell you good Sir you fear where no fear is and that it is both most true on the one side that you in holding good Works meritorious of Eternal Glory make God a rewarder only and not a giver contrary to plain Scripture affirming that The gift of God is Eternal Life And that it is most false on the other side that the Doctrine of Protestants makes God a giver only and not a rewarder In as much as their Doctrine is That God gives not Heaven but to those which do something for it and so his gift is also a Reward but withal that whatsoever they do is due unto God beforehand and worth nothing to God and worth nothing in respect of Heaven and so Mans work is no Merit and Gods reward is still a Gift 36. Put the case the Pope for a reward of your Service done him in writing this Book had given you the Honour and means of a Cardinal would you not not only in humility but in sincerity have professed that you had not merited such a reward And yet the Pope is neither your Creator nor Redeemer nor Preserver nor perhaps your very great Benefactor sure I am not so great as God Almighty and therefore hath no such right and title to your Service as God hath in respect of precedent obligations Besides the work you have done him hath been really advantagious to him and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the forementioned reward And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you have or hope to have deserved immortal Happiness I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinals Cap than a Crown of immortal Glory and with that Cardinal to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise 37. As for your distinction between Heresies that have been and Heresies that are and Heresies that may be I have already proved it vain and that whatsoever may be an Heresie that is so and whatsoever is so that always hath been so ever since the publication of the Gospel of Christ The Doctrine of your Church may like a Snow-ball increase with rouling and again if you please melt away and decrease But as Christ Jesus so his Gospel is yesterday and to day and the same for ever 38. Our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach gave them no other Commission than this Go teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you These were the bounds of their Commission If your Church have any larger or if she have a Commission at large to teach what she pleases and call it the Gospel of Christ let her produce her Letters patents from Heaven for it But if this be all you have then must you give me leave to esteem it both great sacriledg in you to forbid any thing be it never so small or ceremonious which Christ hath commanded as the receiving of the Communion in both kinds and as high a degree of presumption to enjoyn men to believe that there are or can be any other Fundamental Articles of the Gospel of Christ than what Christ himself commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verities 39. Ad § 16 17. The saying of the most Learned Prelate and excellent man the Arch-Bishop of Armach which shall be set down at the end of N.
such great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some Books be Canonical or no as you require If they had why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs 35. You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these Words In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Books of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church you demand what they mean by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical I Answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you infer from hence This is to make the Church Judge I have told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Judge but not the present Church much less the present Roman Church but the consent and Testimony of the Ancient and Primitive Church Which though it be but a highly probable inducement and no demonstrative enforcement yet methinks you should not deny but it may be a sufficient ground of Faith Whose Faith even of the Foundation of all your Faith your Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly upon Prudential Motives 36. But by this Rule the whole Book of Esther must quit the Canon because it was excluded by some in the Church by Melito Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen Then for ought I know he that should think he had reason to exclude it now might be still in the Church as well as Melito Athanasius Nazianzen were And while you thus inveigh against Luther and charge him with Luciferian Heresies for doing that which you in this very place confess that Saints in Heaven before him have done are you not partial and a Judge of evil thoughts 37. Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes Job and the Prophets though you make such Tragedies with them I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction and far from having in them any Fundamental Heresie He that condemns him for saying the Book of Ecclesiastes is not full That it hath many abrupt things condemns him for ought I can see for speaking truth And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing The Book of Job may be a true History and yet as many true Stories are and have been an Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience And though the Books of the Prophets were not written by themselves but by their Disciples yet it does not follow that they were written casually Though I hope you will not damn all for Hereticks that say some Books of Scripture were written casually Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be called in question for being written by their Disciples seeing being so written they had attestation from themselves Was the Prophesie of Jeremy the less Canonical for being written by Baruch Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospel and S. Mark the Scholar writ it is it the more likely to be called in Question 38. But leaving Luther you return to our English Canon of Scripture And tell us that in the New Testament by the above mentioned rule of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church divers Books must be discanonized Not so For I may believe even those questioned Books to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonical but I cannot in Reason believe this of them so undoubtedly as of those Books which were never questioned At least I have no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justifie or excuse such their doubting or denial 39. You observe in the next place that our sixth Article specifying by name all the Books of the Old Testament shuffles over these of the New with this generality All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical And in this you fancy to your self a mystery of iniquity But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of I believe the Church as well as the King may give for her Motto Honi soit qui mal y pense For all the Bibles which since the Composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England do testifie and even proclaim to the World that by Commonly received they meant received by the Church of Rome and other Churches before the Reformation I pray take the pains to look in them and there you shall find the Books which the Church of England counts Apocryphal marked out and severed from the rest with this Title in the beginning The Books called Apocrypha and with this close or Seal in the End The End of the Apocrypha And having told you by name and in particular what Books only She Esteems Apocryphal I hope you will not put Her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in Her judgment Canonical 40. But if by Commonly received She meant by the Church of Rome Then by the same reason must She receive divers Books of the Old Testament which She rejects 41. Certainly a very good Consequence The Church of England receives the Books of the New Testament which the Church of Rome receives Therefore she must receive the Books of the Old Testament which she receives As if you should say If you will do as we in one thing you must in all things If you will pray to God with us you must pray to Saints with us If you hold with us when we have reason on our side you must de so when we have no reason 43. But with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article That by Scripture we mean those Books that were never doubted of and in the latter say We receive all the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received whereas of them many were doubted I answer When they say of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church They mean not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not Universal yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonical In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and Authority was not so great as to prevail against the contrary suffrages 44. But if to be commonly received pass for a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by why not of the Old You conclude many times very well but still when you do so it is out of principles which no man grants For who ever told you that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament
câ—stodiri quemadmodam scriptura Canonica tot linguarum literis ordine successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae custoditur contra quam non defuerunt tamen qui sub nominibus Apostolorum multa confingerent Frustra quidem Quia illa sic commendata sic celebrata sic nota est Verum quid possit adversus literas non Canonica authoritate fundatas etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae conatus audaciae quod adversus eos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt sese erigere non praetermisit Aug. ep 48. ad Vincent contra Donat Rogat That in his judgment the only preservative of the Scriptures integrity was the Translating it into so many Languages and the general and perpetual use and reading of it in the Church for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kind but the Canonical Scripture being by this means guarded with Universal care and dilligence was not obnoxious to such attempts And this assurance of the Scriptures incorruption is common to us with him we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was and that I hope was certain enough Yet if this does not satisfie you I say farther We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was He in his Preface to his Bible tells us b In hac Germani textus pervestigatione satis perspicue inter omnes constat nullum argumentum esse certius ac firmius quam antiquorem probatorum codicum latinorum fidem c. sic Sixtus in praefat That in the prevestigation of the true and genuine Text it was perspicuously manifest to all men that there was no Argument more firm and certain to be relied upon than the Faith of Ancient Books Now this ground we have to build upon as well as He had and therefore our certainty is as great and stands upon as certain ground as his did 56. This is not all I have to say in this matter For I will add moreover that we are as certain in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted as any man in your Church was until Clement the 8th set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar Translation For you do not nor cannot without extreme impudence deny that until then there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of your Church and those very frequent in various lections all which Copies might possibly be false in some things but more than one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things Neither were it less impudence to pretend that any man in your Church could until Clements's time have any certainty what that one true Copy and reading was if there were any one perfectly true Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bible might after the Edition of that very likely think themselves cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Translation without being beholden to Clement but how fouly they were abused and deceived that thought so the Edition of Clemens differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places doth sufficiently demonstrate 57. This certainty therefore in what Language the Scripture remains uncorrupted is it necessary to have it or is it not If it be not I hope we may do well enough without it If it be necessary what became of your Church for 1500 Years together All which time you must confess she had no such certainty no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say This or that Copy of the Bible is pure and perfect and uncorrupted in all things And now at this present though some of you are grown to a higher degree of Presumption in this point yet are you as far as ever from any true and real and rational assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentick Translation which I suppose my self to have proved unanswerably in divers places 58. Ad 16. § C. M. Objects to Protestants That their Translations of the Scripture are very different and by each other mutually condemned Luthers Translation by Zwinglius and others That of the Zwinglians by Luther The Translation of Oecolampadius by the Divines of Basil that of Castalio by Beza That of Beza by Castalio That of Calvin by Carolus Molinaeus That of Geneva by M. Parks and King James And lastly one of our Translations by the Puritans 59. I HIL All which might have been as justly objected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church and made use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it For which I desire not that my word but S. Austins may be taken They which have Translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek may be numbred but the Latine Interpreters are innumerable For whensoever any one in the first times of Christianity met with a Greek Bible and seemed to himself to have some ability in both Languages he presently ventured upon an Interpretation So He in his second Book of Christian Doctrine Cap. 11. Of all these that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best so we may learn from the same S. Austin in the 15. Chap. of the same Book Amongst all these Interpretations saith he let the Italian be preferred for it keeps closer to the Letter and is perspicuous in the sense Yet so far was the Church of that time from persuming upon the absolute purity and perfection even of this best Translation that S. Hierome thought it necessary to make a new Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew Fountain which himself testifies in his Book de Viris Illustribus And to correct the vulgar version of the New Testament according to the truth of the Original Greek amending many Errors which had crept into it whether by the mistake of the Author or the negligence of the Transcribers which work he undertook and performed at the request of Damasus Bishop of Rome You constrain me saith he to make a new Work of an old that after the Copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed through the whole World I should sit as it were an Arbitrator amongst them and because they vary among themselves should determine what are those things in them which consent with the Greek verity And after Therefore this present Preface promises the four Gospels only corrected by collation with Greek Copies But that they might not be very dissonant from the Custome of the Latine reading I have so tempered with my stile the Translation of the Ancients that those things amended wich did seem to change the sense other things I have suffered to remain as they were So that in this matter Protestants must either stand or fall with the Primitive Church 62. C. M. But the Faith of Protestants relies upon Scripture alone Scripture is delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend upon the skill and honesty of Men who certainly may Err because they are Men and certainly do Err at least some of them because their Translations are contrary
43. is as great and as good a Truth and as necessary for these miserable times as can possibly be uttered For this is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to Unity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hindrance to their Unity in Communion 40. Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle unless that could be done which is impossible to be performed though it be often pretended that is unless it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies to whose judgment all men are to submit themselves What then remains but that the other way must be taken and Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high points of Faith and obedience wherein they agree than upon these matters of less moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectual to joyn them in one Communion than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them When I say in one Communion I mean in a common Profession of those articles of Faith wherein all consent A joynt worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful and a mutual performance of all those works of Charity which Christians owe one to another And to such a Communion what better inducement could be thought of than to demonstrate that what was Universally believed of all Christians if it were joyned with a love of truth and with holy obedience was sufficient to bring men to Heaven For why should men be more rigid than God Why should any Error exclude any man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of Eternal Salvation Now that Christians do generally agree in all those points of Doctrine which are necessary to Salvation it is apparent because they agree with one accord in believing all those Books of the Old and New Testament which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted Word of God And it is so certain that in all these Books all necessary Doctrines are evidently contained that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent that in every one of their Books they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospel of Christ For what reason can be imagined that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet as apparently all of them have done put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospel of Christ would do so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospel of Christ for the Indians think you he would have left out any Fundamental Doctrine of it If not I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Matthew and S. Mark and S. Luke and S. John as you do of Xaverius Besides if every one of them have not in them all necessary Doctrines how have they complied with their own design which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospel of Christ and not a part of it Or how have they not deceived us in giving them such Titles By the whole Gospel of Christ I understand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes up the Covenant between God and Man Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospel of Saint Mark and Saint John I believe every considering man will be inclinable to believe that then without doubt it is contained with the advantage of many other very profitable things in the larger Gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke And that Saint Marks Gospel wants no necessary Article of this Covenant I presume you will not deny if you believe Irenaeus when he says Matthew to the Hebrews in their Tongue published the Scripture of the Gospel When Peter and Paul did Preach the Gospel and found the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the Scholar of Peter delivered to us in writing those things which had been Preached by Peter and Luke the follower of Paul compiled in a Book the Gospel which was Preached by him And afterwards John residing in Asia in the City of Ephseus did himself also set forth a Gospel 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Hereticks Lib. 3. c. 2. that pretended as you know who do now adaies that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospel were unwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must mean sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not Tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospel which was Preached by S Peter was written by S Mark and so other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirm than confute their Error It is plain therefore that he must mean as I pretend that all the necessary Doctrine of the Gospel which was Preached by Saint Peter was written by Saint Mark. Now you will not deny I presume that Saint Peter Preached all therefore you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all 42. Our next inquiry let it be touching S. Johns intent in writing his Gospel whether it were to deliver so much truth as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to Eternal Life or only part of it and to leave part unwritten A great man there is but much less than the Apostle who saith that writing last he purposed to supply the defects of the other Evangelists that had wrote before him which if it were true would sufficiently justifie what I have undertaken that at least all the four Evangelists have in them all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ Neither will I deny but S. Johns secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three Gospels in some things very profitable But he that pretends that any necessary Doctrine is in S. John which is in none of the other Evangelists hath not so well considered them as he should do before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter And for his prime intent in writing his Gospel what that was certainly no Father in the World understood it better than himself Therefore let us hear him speak Many other signs saith he also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Book But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that believing you may have Life in his name By these are written may be understood either these things are written or these signs are written
believe would prove his intent had not the corruptions of the Roman Church possessed and infected even the publick Service of God among them in which their Communion was required and did not the Church of Rome require the Belief of all her Errors as the condition of her Communion But howsoever be his reasons conclusive or not conclusive certainly this was the profest opinion of him and divers others as by name Cassander and Baldwin who though they thought as ill of the Doctrine of the most prevailing part of the Church of Rome as Protestants do yet thought it their duty not to separate from her Communion And if there were any considerable number of considerable men thus minded as I know not why any man should think there was not then it is made not only a most difficult but even an impossible thing to know what was the Catholick Judgment of our Fathers in the points of controversie seeing they might be joyned in Communion and yet very far divided in opinion They might all live in obedience to the Pope and yet some think him head of the Church by Divine right others as a great part of the French Church at this day by Ecclesiastical constitution others by neither but by Practice and Usurpation wherein yet because he had Prescription of many Ages for him he might not justly be disturbed All might go to Confession and yet some only think it necessary others only profitable All might go to Mass and the other Services of the Church and some only like and approve the Language of it others only tolerate it and wish it altered if it might be without greater inconvenience All might receive the Sacrament and yet some believe it to be the Body and Blood of Christ others only a Sacrament of it Some that the Mass was a true and proper Sacrifice others only a Commemorative Sacrifice or the Commemoration of a Sacrifice Some that it was lawful for the Clergy to deny the Laiety the Sacramental Cup others that it was lawful for them to receive in one kind only seeing they could not in both Some might adore Christ as present there according to his Humanity others as present according to his Divine Nature only Some might pray for the Dead as believing them in Purgatory others upon no certain ground but only that they should rather have their Prayers and Charity which wanted them not than that they which did want them should not have them Some might pray to Saints upon a belief that they heard their Prayers and knew their Hearts others might pray to them meaning nothing but to pray by them that God for their sakes would grant their Prayers others thirdly might not pray to them at all as thinking it unnecessary others as fearing it unlawful yet because they were not fully resolved only forbearing it themselves and not condemning it in others Uncle I pray you then remember also what it is that Protestants do commonly taunt and check Catholicks with is it not that they believe Traditions It is a meer Calumny that Protestants condemn all kind of Traditions who subscribe very willingly to that of Vincentius Lerinensis That Christian Religion is res tradita non inventa a matter of Tradition not of mans invention is what the Church received from the Apostles and by consequence what the Apostles delivered to the Church and the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God Chemnitius in his Examen of the Council of Trent hath liberally granted seven sorts of Traditions and Protestants find no fault with him for it Prove therefore any Tradition to be Apostolick which is not written Shew that there is some known Word of God which we are commanded to believe that is not contained in the Books of the Old and New Testament and we shall quickly shew that we believe Gods Word because it is Gods and not because it is written If there were any thing not written which had come down to us with as full and Universal a Tradition as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture That thing should I believe as well as the Scripture but I have long fought for some such thing and yet I am to seek Nay I am confident no one point in Controversie between Papists and Protestants can go in upon half so fair Cards for to gain the esteem of an Apostolick Tradition as those things which are now decried on all hands I mean the opinion of the Chiliasts and the Communicating Infants The latter by the confession of Cardinal Perron Maldonate and Binius was the Custom of the Church for 600 years at least It is expresly and in terms vouched by S. Austin for the Doctrine of the Church and an Apostolick Tradition it was never instituted by General Council but in the use of the Church as long before the First general Council as S. Cyprian before the Council There is no known Author of the beginning of it all which are the Catholick marks of an Apostolick Tradition and yet this you say is not so or if it be why have you abolisht it The former Lineally derives its pedigree from our Saviour to St. John from S. John to Papias from Papias to Just in Martyr Irenaeus Melito Sardensis Tertullian and others of the two first Ages who as they generally agree in the Affirmation of this Doctrine and are not contradicted by any of their Predecessors so some of them at least speak to the point not as Doctors but Witnesses and deliver it for the Doctrine of the Church and Apostolick Tradition and condemn the contrary as Heresie And therefore if there be any unwritten Traditions these certainly must be admitted first or if these which have so fair pretence to it must yet be rejected I hope then we shall have the like liberty to put back Purgatory and Indulgences and Transubstantiation and the Latin Service and the Communion in one kind c. none of which is of Age enough to be Page to either of the forenamed Doctrines especially the opinion of the Millenaries Uncle What think you means this word Tradition No other thing certainly but that we confute all our Adversaries by the Testimony of the former Church saying unto them this was the belief of our Fathers Thus were we taught by them and they by theirs without stop or stay till you come to Christ We confute our Adversaries by saying thus Truly a very easie confutation But saying and proving are two Mens Offices and therefore though you be excellent in the former I fear when it comes to the Tryal you will be found defective in the Latter Uncle And this no other but the Roman Church did or could ever pretend to which being in truth undeniable and they cannot choose but grant the thing Their last refuge is to laugh and say that both Fathers and Councils did Err because they were men as if Protestants themselves were more Is it not so as I tell you No indeed it is not by your
by Have you been trained up in Schools of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference between these two We receive the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or Reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule than you should make the Church of England the rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The Books of the New Testament we receive for Canonical as they are received by the Church of England 45. You demand upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon and agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it self no more apparently reasonable than our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say your Churches Infallibility is your ground I demand again some Infallible ground both for the Churches Infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands until you settle me upon a Rock I mean give such an answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Universal Tradition I reply your Churches Infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receive it is For we do not profess our selves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain neither do we urge others to be so of those Books which have been doubted as of those that never have 46. The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it self alone but by some extrinsecal Authority Which you need not prove for no Wise Man denies it But then this authority is that of Universal Tradition not of your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospel of Saint Matthew is the Word of God as that all which your Church says is true 47. That Believers of the Scripture by considering the Divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their Faith of the Scriptures Divine Authority and that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto internal arguments have their place and force certainly no man of understandeng can deny For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one main pillar of my Faith and for want of it I fear should be much staggered in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Believer sees by that glorious beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internal Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is he is moved to and strengthened in his belief of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrel with him for saying so must find fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Scholars for they all say the same 48. In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporal light is by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposal Faith still you say must go before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes so the Scripture only to those that have the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture do move and determine our Understanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else than the Understandings assent And therefore upon this supposal Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith unto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it self being able as here you suppose to determine and move the understanding to assent that is to believe them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the Eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceive that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogy must stand thus Scripture must answer to light The Eye of the Soul that is the Understanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily Eye And lastly assenting or believing to the Act of seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposes the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the Object on which it is imployed yet it self is presupposed and antecedent to the Act of seeing as the cause is always to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moves the understanding to assent The Understanding that 's the Eye and Objection which it works must be before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the belief whereof the Scripture moves and the understanding is moved which answers to the Act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so any more than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already Or an Architect build an House that is built already Or than this very world can be made again before it be unmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitful of such Monsters But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of Error will easily perceive that Jam factum facere and Factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digress 49. The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a Dish There you tell us That if there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith this can be no other than the Church By the Church we know you do and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can have Faith but he must be moved to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians and believe the Gospel because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly Die for it yet indeed are Infidels and believe nothing The Scripture tells us The Heart of man
23. The next § argues thus For many Ages there was no Scripture in the World and for many more there was none in many places of the World yet men wanted not then and there some certain direction what to believe Therefore there was then an Infallible Judge Just as if I should say York is not my way from Oxford to London therefore Bristol is Or a Dog is not a Horse therefore he is a Man As if God had no other ways of revealing himself to men but only by Scripture and an infallible Church * See Chrysost Hom. 1. in Mat. Isidor Pelus l. 3. ep 106. and also Basil in Ps 28. and then you shall confess that by other means besides these God did communicate himself unto men and made them receive and understand his Laws see also to the same purpose Heb. 1.1 S. Chrysostome and Isidorus Pelusiota conceived he might use other means And S. Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his Works and that they had the Law written in their Hearts Either of these ways might make some faithful men without either necessity of Scripture or Church 124. But D. Potter says you say In the Jewish Church there was a living Judge indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to Divine Faith are And where was that infallible direction in the Jewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment D. Potter indeed might say very well not that the high Priest was infallible for certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed Besides it is one thing to say that the living judge in the Jewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the priviledge which you challenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Jews As a man may truly say the Wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not do otherwise 125. But either the Church retains still her infallibility or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture which is absurd An Argument methinks like this Either you have Horns or you have lost them but you never lost them therefore you have them still If you say you never had Horns so say I for ought appears by your reasons the Church never had infallibility 126. But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others therefore if Scriptures were the Judge of Controversies some Churches had one Judge and some another And what great inconvenience is there in that that one part of England should have one Judge and another another especially seeing the Books of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest had as much of the Doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were received by any all the necessary parts of the Gospel being contained in every one of the four Gospels as I have proved So that they which had all the Books of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be said divers times and be testified by divers witnesses And they that had but one of the four Gospels wanted nothing necessary and therefore it is vainly inferred by you that with Months and Years as new Canonical Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies 127. Heresies you say would arise after the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures These cannot be discovered condemned and avoided unless the Church be Infallible Therefore there must be a Church infallible But I pray tell me Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered condemned avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith If Scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the Faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresie seeing Heresie is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the Faith That which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other If any one should deny that there is a God That this God is omnipotent omniscient good just true merciful a rewarder of them that seek him a punisher of them that obstinately offend him that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the World that it is he by obedience to whom men must look to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Passion or Resurrection or Ascension or sitting at the right Hand of God his having all Power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be Judge of the Quick and the Dead that all men shall Rise again at the last Day That they which believe and repent shall be saved That they which do not believe or repent shall be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaical Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath a sufficient means to discover and condemn and avoid that Heresie without any need of an infallible guide If you say that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith I answer that it is a matter of Faith to believe that the sense of them whatsoever it is which was intended by God is true for he that does not do so calls Gods Truth into question But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdom to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely or how can it consist with his Justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed Suppose there were an absolute Monarch that in his own absense from one of his Kingdoms had written Laws for the Government of it some very plainly and some very ambiguously and obscurely and his Suctjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactness and for those that were obscure use their best diligence to find his meaning in them and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived should this King either with justice or wisdom be offended with these Subjects if by reason of the obscurity of them they mistook the sense of them and
leave good Uncle For first the Greek Church as every body knows pretends to perpetual succession of Doctrine and undertakes to derive it from Christ and his Apostles as confidently as we do ours Neither is there any word in all this discourse but might have been urged as fairly and as probably for the Greek Church as for the Roman and therefore seeing your Arguments fight for both alike they must either conclude for both which is a direct impossibility for then Contradictions should be both true or else which is most certain they conclude for neither and are not Demonstrations as you pretend for never any Demonstration could prove both parts of a Contradiction but meer Sophisms and Captions as the progress of our answer shall justifie Secondly It is so far from Protestants to grant the thing you speak of To wit that the controverted Doctrines of the Roman Church came from Apostolick Tradition that they verily believe should the Apostles now live again they would hardly be able to find amongst you the Doctrin which they taught by reason of abundance of trash and rubbish which you have laid upon it And lastly They pretend not that Fathers and Councils may err and they cannot nor that they were men and themselves are not but that you do most unjustly and vainly to father your inventions of Yesterday upon the Fathers and Councils Nephew I know that we Catholicks do reverence Traditions as much as Scripture it self neither do I see why we should be blamed for it for the words which Christ and his Apostles spake must needs be as infallible as those which were written True But still the question depends whether Christ and his Apostles did indeed speak those words which you pretend they did we say with Irenaeus Praeconiaverunt primum scripserunt postea What they preacht first that they wrote afterwards we say with Tertullian Ecclesias Apostoli condiderunt ipsi eis praedicando tam vivâ quod aiunt voce quam per Epistolas postea The Apostles founded the Churches by their Preaching to them first by word of mouth then after by their writings If you can prove the contrary do so and we yield but hitherto you do nothing Nephew And as for the keeping of it I see the Scripture it self is beholden to Tradition Gods providence presupposed for the integrity both of the letter and the sense Of the letter it is confest of the sense manifest For the sense being a distinct thing from the naked letter and rather fetcht out by force of consequence than in express and formal terms contained which is most true whether we speak of Protestant sense or the Catholick it belongeth rather to Tradition than express Text of Scripture That which you desire to conclude is That we must be beholden to Tradition for the sense of Scripture and your reason to conclude this is because the sense is fetcht out by force of consequence This of some places of Scripture is not true especially those which belong to faith and good manners which carry their meaning in their foreheads Of others it is true but nothing to the purpose in hand but rather directly against it For who will not say If I collect the sense of Scripture by Reason then I have it not from Authority that is unless I am mistaken If I fetch it out by force of Consequence then I am not beholden to Tradition for it But the letter of Scripture has been preserved by Tradition and therefore why should we not receive other things upon Tradition as well as Scripture I answer The Jews Tradition preserved the books of the Old Testament and why then doth our Saviour receive these upon their Tradition and yet condemn other things which they suggested as matters of Tradition If you say it was because these Traditions came not from Moses as they were pretended I say also that yours are only pretended and not proved to come from the Apostles Prove your Tradition of these Additions as well as you prove the Tradition of Scripture and assure your selves we then according to the injunction of the Council of Trent shall receive both with equal reverence Nephew As it may appear by the sense of these few words Hoc est corpus meum whether you take the Protestant or the Catholick sense For the same Text cannot have two contrary senses of it self but as they are fetcht out by force of Argument and therefore what sense hath best Tradition to shew for it self that 's the Truth This is neither Protestant nor Catholick sense but if we may speak the truth direct nonsense For what if the same Text cannot have contrary senses is there therefore no means but Tradition to determin which is the true sense What connexion or what relation is there between this Antecedent and this Consequent certainly they are meer strangers to one another and until they met by chance in this argument never saw each other before He that can find a third proposition to joyn them together in a good syllogism I profess unto you Erit mihi magnus Appollo But what if of these two contrary senses the one that is the Literal draw after it a long train of absurdities The other that is the Figurative do not so Have we not reason enough without advising with Tradition about the matter to reject the Literal sense and embrace the Spiritual S. Austin certainly thought we had For he gives us this direction in his Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ and the first and fittest Text that he could choose to exemplifie his Rule what think you is it even the Cousin-German to that which you have made choice of Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man c. Here saith he the Letter seems to command impiety Figura est ergo Therefore it is a Figure commanding to feed devoutly upon the Passion of our Lord and to lay up in our memory that Christ was crucified for us Uncle These particulars peradventure would require a further discussion and now I will take nothing but what is undeniable As this is to wit That what points are in Controversie betwixt us and Protestants we believe to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles to our forefathers and by them delivered from hand to hand to our Fathers whom we know to have delivered them for such to us and to have received and believed them for such themselves Certainly though Ink and Paper cannot blush yet I dare say you were fain to rub your forehead over and over before you committed this to Writing Say what you list for my part I am so far from believing you that I verily believe you do not believe your selves when you pretend that you believe those points of your Doctrin which are in controversie to have been delivered to your Forefathers by Christ and his Apostles Is it possible that any sober man who has read the New Testament should believe that Christ and his Apostles taught
not go about this noble work presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Council of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing he assists none but what he himself moves to And whether he did move the Pope to call this Council is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himself 96. If you say your meaning is only That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infalliblyassisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Books be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all Errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot do this without taking away their free-will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their free-will in believing and in professing their belief 97. Obj. To the place of S. Austin I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Contr. ep Fund c. 5. Answ I answer That not the Authority of the present Church much less of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone moved Saint Austin to believe the Gospel but the perpetual Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your self have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is proved and which it self needs no proof and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his Book De Util. Cred. c. 14. he shews that his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospel therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Universal and Original Tradition lies against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may do well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names instead of Manichaeus unless you can shew the things agrees to them as well as him 98. If you say that S. Austin speaks here of the Authority of the Present Church abstracting from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99. I answer First that it is a vain presumption of yours that the Catholick Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austin speak here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it and its both Personal and Doctrinal succession from the Apostles His Argument will be like a Buskin that will serve any leg It will serve to keep an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholick as well as a Catholick from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the Title of Catholicks and the Church as much as the Papists now do If then you should have come to an Ancient Goth or Vandal whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should have moved him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying believe the Gospel why should I not obey saying to me do not believe the Homoousians Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say believe the Arrians they warn me not to give any Credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say do not believe the Arrians thou shalt not do well to force me to the Faith of the Homoousians because by the Preaching of the Arrians I believed the Gospel it self If you say you did well to believe them commending the Gospel but you did not well to believe them discommending the Homoousians Doest thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethink your selves what you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 101. And whereas you say S. Austin may seem to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ Commanded any good thing Answ I answer Until you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a member of the Church of England who received his Baptism Education and Faith from the Ministry of this Church say just so to you as S. Austin here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose authority I was moved to believe that Christ commandded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief thereof had been recommended by you to me This therefore that Christ Jesus did those miracles and taught that Doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted Books of the New
Testament I believed by Fame strengthened with Celebrity and Consent even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another and lastly by Antiquity which gives an Universal and a constant attestation to them But every one may see that you so few in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture so turbulent that you damn all to the Fire and to Hell that any way differ from you that you profess it is lawful for you to use violence and power whensoever you can have it for the planting of your own Doctrine and the extirpation of the contrary lastly so new in many of your Doctrines as in the lawfulness and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramental Cup the lawfulness and expedience of your Latine Service Transubstantiation Indulgences Purgatory the Popes infallibility his Authority over Kings c so new I say in comparison of the undoubted Books of Scripture which evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our Faith I say every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority with wise and considerate men What madness is this Believe them the consent of Christians which are now and have been ever since Christ in the World that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said which contradict and damn all other parts of Christendom Why I beseech you Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily persuade my self that I were not to believe in Christ than that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him at least than that I should learn what his Religion was from you who have wronged so exceedingly his Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine which might give us just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones Who with forging so many false Stories and false Authors have taken a fair way to make the Faith of all Stories questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the Word of Christ and which for the most part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them which if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church would be very apt to make suspicious men believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerful who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted For if you take this Authority upon you upon the six Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that time did not Usurp the same Authority upon the Authors of the six last Ages before them and so upwards until we come to Christ himself Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the Fountain of Apostolick Tradition but have insinuated themselves into the Streams by little and little some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently some more lately and some yet are Embrio's yet hatching and in the Shell as the Popes Infallibility the Blessed Virgins immaculate conception the Popes power over the Temporalities of Kings the Doctrine of Predetermination c. all which yet are or in time may be imposed upon Christians under the Title of Original and Apostolick Tradition and that with that necessity that they are told they were as good believe nothing at all as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles which they know to have been brought in but yesterday which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves I am told that I were as good believe nothing at all as believe some points which the Church teaches me and not others and some things which she teaches to be Ancient and Certain I plainly see to be New and False therefore I will believe nothing at all Whether I say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus and whether this conclusion be not too often made in Italy and Spain and France and in England too I leave it to the judgment of those that have Wisdom and Experience Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so far from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather conclude Seeing we receive not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Interpretation of Scripture 102. Ad § 19. In this number this Argument is contained The Judge of Controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned The Scripture is not so and the Church is so Therefore the Church is the Judge and not the Scripture 103. To this I answer As to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Judge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Judge otherwise you might make your self Judge of Controversies by arguing The Scripture is not intelligible by all but I am therefore I am Judge of Controversies If you say your intent was to conclude against the Scripture and not for the Church I demand why then but to delude the simple with Sopistry did you say in the close of this § Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such but that you would leave it to them to infer in the end which indeed was more than you undertook in the beginning Therefore the Church is Judge and the Scripture not I say Secondly that you still run upon a false supposition that God hath appointed some Judge of all Controversies that may happen among Christians about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture whereas he has left every one to his liberty herein in those words of S. Paul Quisque abundet in sensu suo c. I say Thirdly Whereas some Protestants make the Scripture Judge of Controversies that they have the Authority of Fathers to warrant their manner of speaking as of * Contra Parmen l. 5. in Prin. Optatus 104. But speaking truly and properly the Scripture is not a Judge nor cannot be but only a sufficient Rule for those to judge by that believe it to be the word of God as the Church of England and the Church of Rome both do what they are to believe and what they are not to believe I say sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intellible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether they be learned or unlearned And my reason hereof is convincing and demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed