be intended to that purpose since also the words do in short fully represent the office of the Church the intention of the passage must be gathered by the scope according to the rule of the Schoolman Intelligentia dicti colligitur ex scopo loquendi Now the drift of Saint Paul was to instruct him how he should carry himself in the Church Was it reasonable then he should have account of the Church in the priviledges of it or in the duty thereof which is to hold forth and uphold truth For if the Infallibility of the Church were here affirmed then needed he not to have such instructions to take care how he behaved himself in the Church Since Infallible assistance is immediate and that which is immediate includes no time for the inspiration nor means of instruction therefore had your Roman Church been real in the asserting of Infallibility it had not needed eighteen years for the sitting of the Trent Council with Intermissions nor more for the consultation whether there should be any As for that which comes next of Athanasius it was in part answered before the Argument is this the Consubstantiality of the Son is by Athanasius after the determination of the Nicene Council called that Word of God by the Nicene Council which remaineth for ever and ever And this is no where clearly said in Scripture therefore somewhat which is not clearly said in Scripture may by a Council be determined to be the Word of God To this we answer we may grant you all of the Syllogism and yet nothing accrews to you if the words by the Nicene Council be understood ministerially to Scripture which they were bound to declare the sense of as to that point and so it did not binde with relation to their Authority but by Authority of Scripture which they declared the mind of in that case And therefore though so we grant the Argument yet do we deny your Consequence which you would make of it in your sense that the Church is infallible in the definitions of it since that which was defined was indeed Infallible and yet was not Infallibly defined for though the Council did not erre in that definition yet it might have erred and if it did not erre in that yet it might erre in other definitions and therefore can we not without suspense intuitively receive what they propose as the Word of God which is by you yet to be proved For secondly That which they have the Principles and Grounds of Scripture for it is more easie for them rightly to define in the Application of those principles unto particular cases as they had for that question about the Consubstantiality of the Son as Saint John the 10.30 I and my Father are one not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one Person but one in Nature but as for those questions whereof the solution is not so principled in Scripture as being not so necessary to be held on either part we cannot expect so likely a determination and yet if probable we cannot from thence urge it as an object of Faith That which is in Scripture according to equivalence of sense as that point is we may better credit upon account of Scripture then that which the ignorance of doth not damn since the Scripture gives us no moments of knowledge how to order our assent affirmatively or negatively in that But thirdly Saint Athanasius did not ground his Faith in the affirmative of that question upon the authority of the Nicene Council because he held it before the Council had determined it and therefore the cause of his Faith herein was not the authority of the Council And if that Council of Nice was to be believed for it selfe without respect to the matter as depending upon Scripture why not the Council of Ariminum to the contrary and therefore Saint S. Austin would refer it to Scripture betwixt him Maximinus a Bishop of the Arrians since the Councils was contrary And if any exception could have been made against the Council of Ariminum as towards the denial of such authority of it as is due to other Councils had it not been easie for the Father to have held the Doctrine upon the Authority of the Council of Nice though the other had been rejected In your 23. Number you do not fairly render my Answer I did not say that Christ would not be at all with his Church to the end of the world but it is not necessarily there meant that he would be with them unto the end of the world as he was with the Apostles by Infallible assistance so he did not promise he would be with the Successours of the Apostles And therefore if this be a simple mistake it is a fallacy a dicto secundum quid if you intended a slander it is worse Infallible assistance is not there promised and therefore the promise may be made good without it Neither was there such need of Infallible assistance whatsoever you say because the rule of Faith and Manners was to be determined in the Scripture which is the Infallible Word of God So that although they who followed the Apostles in the governance of the Church had been so disposed for Infallible assistance as the Apostles yet had there not been that use of the assistance Infallible but having not that disposition thereunto they wanted a condition and qualification for such assistance And God did not give an Infallible assistance to the Apostles because they were disposed for that gift of Infallibility but rather gave them that disposition that so they might be fitted for that Infallibility And so if he had intended such a measure of the Spirit to the Successors of the Apostles as to them he could have made them as capable thereof As for your Reason which you mention of leaving as secure direction for them who followed because the further we go from Christs time the more we are subject to uncertainty about his Doctrine therefore there is as much yea far more reason of this secure direction I answer You do not well consider what you say For if we be more subject to uncertainties the further we goe from Christ his time then cannot you urge the credit of those Traditions now equally to the certainty of them then supposing that there were any of Faith not written Secondly this Reason would be none if men would be guided by Scripture which hath now the same certainty as ever This is a Rule which will with equal infallibility hold at all times and unto which we are all equally obliged Again you would argue that the Church is secure from damnable errour because Christ promised to be with it to the end of the world and he is not with those who live in damnable errour But what is this to me you may conclude thus and yet not against me if you speak of damnable errour specificatively for if you mean it reduplicatively that all errour is damnable
and none but this from the infallible Authority of Scripture hath no colour or shadow of Scripture or any thing like Scripture You must therefore ground your faith not upon Scripture but upon Reason Now the reason upon which you reject the Scripture is because you have a necessity of an external infallible Judge ever since the whole Canon was finished And for this onely reason without any Text you put the Scriptures sufficiency to expire and give up the ghost even after the finishing of the Canon Now if the reason for which you discard the Scriptures sufficiency be this because all points are not sufficiently cleared by Scripture then there can be no other prudent reason for which you in this one point may suppose the Scripture to be sufficient than this that that one point namely that we are to repair to the Church for all things necessary to salvation cannot be infallibly ascertain'd by the Church And therfore there is a greater necessity to have recourse to the sufficiency of Scripture undoubtedly infallible in all points which doth not causally bring forth their opinion of the Church Let me put them to it Doth the Scripture bring forth their opinion of the Church or doth it not If it doth not what hold have they for the Church And why do they make use of the Scripture to give Letters of Credence to the Church If it doth then there is an end of this Controversie Now the two inferences he would have me mark as clearly deduced from my principles are grounded but upon a supposition and therefore not to be marked but returned upon his concession First That all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture for no point more necessary than this without which there is no coming to the belief of any thing in the Church and yet this point is not plainly set down in Scripture nor that the Church is infallible obscurely Yea whereas he saies the Scripture sends us to the Church the Universal Church doth send us to the infallible Scripture for our necessary direction And this would give them satisfaction if it could serve their turn Moreover the second thing which he would have me mark halts upon the same unequal ground of supposing me to affirm what was but supposed Yet also we can send it home again and I can say that their former concession spoken of before doth overthrow that principle which is the ground-work of their faith For if there be a greater necessity to acknowledge the direction of Scripture in things necessary for as much as concerns this one point of the Church because this one point in particular is less clear of it self that grand principle of theirs which is or must be their principle evidently appeareth false namely that the Testimony of the Church is evidently seen by its own light which must be or else they are all undone And again how is it possible that there should be a greater necessity on the one side to have recourse to the Scripture for the infallible direction of the Church because it cannot be proved infallible by it self and yet on the other side this point of all other points hath this particular priviledge to be so manifest that it beareth witness of it self that it carrieth its own light with it So they may see what they get by taking a supposition for an Affirmation Tacitus's rule is good let nothing be thought prosperous which is not ingenuous Some other lines he hath in this Section to tell me what he hath done before and I have undone But as to a passage which I used out of Bellarmine to confirm a Dilemma which he tells me here that he hath broken before lest the contrary should have been better discerned upon the place he referred me to Bellarmin l. 1. c. 1. In fine as much as I can reade the hand I made use of Bellarmin against new Revelations beside Scripture and therefore we cannot believe the Church for it self because we cannot believe it but by a Revelation and no Revelation beside Scripture as he disputes against the Anabaptists For my answer he puts me off to the former place I think in the end And there is little to the business He saies indeed in the end That we do receive the Prophetical and Apostolical Books according to the minde of the Catholick Church as of old it is laid out in the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent to be the Word of God Et certam ac stabilem regulam fidei and the certain and stable rule of faith Now I hope these latter words are for us For if these words be taken in their just and full sense then the cause is ours If the Scripture be the certain and stable rule of faith then it must be clear otherwise how is it a certain rule and therefore no need of an infallible Judge And it must be sufficient alwaies otherwise how is it a stable rule and so it excludes Traditions But sure that is not the Chapter because my Adversary saies in that place where he speaketh of the Maccabees in particular which he doth not speak of in the first That Chapter where he particularly speaks of the Maccabees is the fifteenth but there is nothing to the purpose neither Thus he puts me to the hunt lest he should be at a loss Well but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is surely in the tenth Chapter where at the end he answers as my Adversary doth to S. Ieroms Authority against the Booke of Maccabees But this is besides the Butt For that which I looked for to be answered out of Bellarmin was the other point of no revelation beside Scripture It is true that I did in the same place name Bellarmine as relating S. Ieroms differing from my Adversarie about the Book of the Maccabees But why should I expect an answer to Bellarmine in this testimony when he produceth it onely that he might refute it that which I should have had satisfaction in out of Bellarmine was spoken by him out of his own judgement But again why did not my Adversary save me the labour of looking up and down for the passage by giving me the entire words of the Cardinal there I might have thought my Adversary would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he proves rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he thought it was not requisite that I should finde the place because there are some adjacent words which I can improve He saies Ierome was of that opinion quia nondum Generale Concilium de his libris aliquid statuerat excepto Libro Judith quem etiam Hieronymus postea recepit Mark the words Because the General Council had not yet determined any thing of those Books except the Book of Iudith which also afterwards S. Ierome received So then it seems a General Council had before taken these Books into consideration namely that of Toby and Iudith and of the Maccabees and determined nothing but
Texts confirm the certainty of Traditions we grant it namely of those Traditions which were afterwards written but how do these Texts confirm the certain necessity of those that are not written And therefore thirdly He is mightily disappointed if he conceives those Texts should bind us to stand upon Traditions now more than ever for the formality of Tradition was there sunk in the writing and the matter of Tradition was the same with that which was writtten in his own confession unless he drives the Texts Heterogeneously to his own words And he impingeth upon the same stone again What wise man would put â—ut one light costing him nothing because it will be shining of its own nature unless you will needs have iâ— hidden because he hath now another light but so that even with both those lights many of his houshold will still remain iâ— darkness Ans He supposeth a light added to a light It is well then that Scripture is assured to be one light but his Tradition should be compared to a light when there is no other light namely when the Scripture is defective Secondly If he thinks Tradition is a light costing us nothing he may be deceived for it will cost a great deal of Scrutiny since we cannot see it shining of its own nature infallibly And thirdly If some be still in darknese with both those lights then surely they may be more in darkness with but one and that is Tradition therefore they should allow the people the light of the Scripture since both too little as he saies to some But fourthly What if one light put out the other in the true state of the question namely Scripture Tradition superadded in matter And what wise man will light a straw candle in the Fathers expression when the Sun shines the Sun-light of Scripture puts out the straw-light of Traditions condemning those who teach for Doctrines Traditions of men which the Romanist does in some proportion And fifthly what wise man would have such a light which serves his turn best when it shines least for Traditions if we believe our Adversaries are a covered dish dainties to be kept private for those who are fit to receive them the more wise and perfect men which may teach them to others The mystery of Salvation that is made common by writing but the mystery of Tradition is put under a bushel The mystery of the Trinity is delivered in Scripture but the mystery of the Trent Traditions must not be familiarly known So then say they what they will or can we shall sooner find an extinguisher for the light of the rush candle than they for the light of the Sun But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us we should have had a more certain Tradition given us So he delivers my words which were not so but thus If Scripture had not been left to us we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us as the Gospel was before it was written Now some difference there is betwixt given us and left us for that which is left to us is intended for our constant use which that which is given doth not connotate So some Pontificians will say the Scripture was given upon particular occasion but was not left to the Church as a fixed universal rule But there is yet more betwixt us about my words we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us so I said he reports me thus we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us A more certain Tradition given and a Tradition more certainly conveighed are not altogether the same the former supposeth the matter of Tradition as not certain and this we can deny as to those times when there was no Scripture as written the other speaks de modo tradendi which comes closer to our question For we can perswade our selves that God who is graciously provident for his Church wherein he hath placed his Name would have taken care that if there had not been a certain direction in writing the matter of necessary Doctrine and practice should have been more certainly communicated to us So then he thrives very little by compare of the Christian Church with the Jewish although the Christian Church be more noble For first the compare must be of the Jewish with the whole Christian Church because the Jewish Church Proselyts being included therein namely Proselyts of the Covenant as they were distinguished was all the Church there was And secondly Because no part of the whole Church can compare with the Jewish Church as to priviledges and then by this reckoning how little of Nobility will fall to their share Thirdly As the Tradition which was it whereby the matter of Scripture was proposed was for the time necessary before the matter of Scripture was written so also must the Tradition of the Christian Church be considered as in relation to the time before which the matter of the New Testament was written therefore he should have pleaded if he would have it done patly that there was any Tradition of Faith after the Old Law was written beside what was written which was to be believed unto Salvation equally to what was written and then have drawn down a parallel Line of proportion of the same though he would have more nobility for the Christian Church Thirdly If the nobleness of a Church be antecedent to more certain Tradition as he thinks then how happened it that there was so little a time betwixt the preaching of the Gospel and the writing of it It seems then if God provides for Churches according to the nobleness of them that the better provision for the Church is by Scripture The Christian then hath a more certain way of Faith than by Tradition And as for means of securing Tradition in the Christian Church which he compares with the Jewish in he hath no cause to bragg For first they cannot say or prove that they have all Traditions in number formal and material Secondly They do not practice all How many are there which St. Basil speaks of in his Tract de Sp. Sanct. which they observe not Thirdly The safety of them is in the whole Church and yet forsooth every one must not know them Fourthly If so then have they reason to blush that they have been more careful to keep Tradition than Scripture and particularly of the Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew and is this for their credit Fifthly Are the Scriptures preserved uncorrupt or not If not how have they been faithful as before If so then why do their learned men obtrude the Authentiqueness of their Latin upon this account that when this Edition was made the Scriptures were pure and uncorrupted but corrupted since Again the Tradition of Christ's Primitive Church before the Scripture was written and sufficiently promulged was to be believed upon her sole Authority Ans If he takes that Tradition inclusively to the Apostles who preached that which they did write
need then of an infallible Judge since in points of question simple errour is not damnative and where indeed shall we have an infallible Judge if there be fallibility in any particular If the Spirit of God speaks in the Church by infallible assistance cannot the Spirit of God infallibly determine all points or if it assists infallibly only to material Articles which are necessary then do you give us a list of your Fundamentals And also for Fundamentals we need not such a Judge having them with sufficient plainnesse in Scripture which is Infallible Upon the whole matter then there is a possibility of their erring without Infallibility and of our erring without damnation So that your first error is an Infallibility of a Judge the second the necessity of such a Judge and a third is this that no Church can prudently be held to be the Catholick Church but the Roman But ought we not to disturb your delight you take in holding a Religion prudently prudently as if we were to choose a Religion by interesse which prudence doth rather direct to not by sapience of the highest speculative principles which direct the understanding but to let that passe We onely note hereby your pronouncing this main Text for the Authority of the Church that what Authority it hath must be resolved into Scripture then is that the first and highest principle That the center of Truth wherein we must rest and the further we go from that the further from Truth And the greater circumference we draw the lines are the remoter from that wherein we must acquiesce as being the Word of God Yet you say here we see the Judge which Christ hath warranted from bringing in any damnable error therefore may we securely obey So you But where is your connexion in this argumentation Either you distinguish damnative error against that which is not damnative or not If not then in your opinion all error is damnative then take you heed of this for this is one Or if you do distinguish it against error damnative yet may we not securely obey this Judge because then we may be bound to obey him in an 〈◊〉 and so should the understanding be obliged to assent to error which is impossible and he must act against his Conscience even in his assent which is a contradiction And that none may disobey this judge securely the Text you bring Matth. 18.17 will not evince to your pâ—â—pose For first it concerns matters of Trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother not matters of Faith and thus it is Eccentrical to your â—esigne Secondly It concerns refractorinesse of the person not unbelief of the Understanding and so the Authority of the Church may binde against the former though not against the latter Thirdly It respects Excommunication by censure not determination of a point by Infallibility and so also is not proper to your cause And fourthly It may erre in the Censure and therefore Excommunication eo ipso doth not damne as Unbelief may Neither am I bound to believe the Censure is just unlesse it appears to be so Fifthly This power belongs to every particular Church and to the several Prelates thereof as you speak also in the number of multitude and therefore is not appropriated to your Church Sixthly It doth not follow a fortieri as you would have it nor yet at all that because the Church is to judge of private complaints therefore it can judge infallibly in causes of greater importance by its authority it doth the former without Infallibility it does not the latter The former of them doth not conclude against me and the latter cannot be from hence collected As for that which followes Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven as far as it regards Excommunication must be also taken specificatively clave non errante as they speak And this toucheth the person unto the submission not the Conscience as to renounce that which it apprehendeth as true for then should Athanasius have been bound in Conscience by the Censure of the Church to have been an Arrian Then from the peril of disobedience to this judge you gather that this must supposse the judge not to be fallâ—ble in such prime causes as must concern the Church and all such causes are those which may bring 〈◊〉 damnable errors So you in the â—nd of that Number But your premises being destroyed your Conclusion is ruinous and yet also you do not conclude punctually according to an Eleâ—ch for you conclude it not fallible in prime causes of main importance but you should in your proof conclude it not fallible in any thing for if it be fallible in any thing wherein the error is not damnative then you doe not conclude it infallible Yea though it should not erre actually in any decision yee followeth not from hence that it is infallible For Infallibility excludes all error in whatsoever iâ— doth propose or decree and also the possibility of error Therefore prove it thus and then an infallibility of our knowledge of it and infallibly what is the subject of this Infallibility and then I shall stand up to your Creed And if you would go the right way in this dispute you should use another method for whereas you would argue the Church to be the judge which we cannot safely disobey if you could make this sure which yet is not done yet you should rather goe this way synthetically the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define therefore it is the Judge which we ought to obey in all things whatsoever it 〈◊〉 out but your discourse from uncertain decisions and inconveniences doth not bespeak any credence of your infallibility much lesse of our knowledge thereof Now we follow you into your eighteenth paragraph And here we meet with St Austins suffrage in his 20. de â—in cap. 9. where he comments upon these words of Rev. â—â— 4 I fanâ— throâ—â— and they sate upon them and judgment was given them So the testimony And what from hence Because the Praeposits judge on earth therefore infallibly then every Church which hath Praeposits should be Infallible Doth this follow we deny not their Iudicature but their Infallibility Conclude thus or you agree with us Then you â—â—y to the Old Testament Mal. 2.7 For the Priests lips shall keep knowledge and they shall require the law from his mouth So you And you note besides a great corruption in our English which rendreth the words the Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law We need not answer that this Text hath nothing for you Is it meant of the Priests at Rome If not how belongeth it to you but to the Priests of the Church â— what an general what then do you get by this Secondly They keep Knowledge sufficiently for the people Do they keep it Infallibly If not we are agreed If infallibly how are the Priests taxed in the following words for not doing so And if the
the Catholick Church is not sufficiently pleaded for the Roman and also Infallibility is not yet asserted to the Catholick And therefore your demonstration you talk of is but a flourish and your Argument you think unanswerable is not to be answered any more because that strength which it had is taken away And I have no more to say untill you have any more to say upon this point or any you mean in difference betwixt us But yet you have not done but like a Parthian who fights flying so you dispute still ending You say you will shew how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this Saint Cyprian Ep. 3. l. 1. saith That false Faith cannot have access to the Roman Church And when you please to press this I shall shew you what little ground you are like to get in that Epistle since though he names the Roman Church as the principal Church as the chair of Peter yet he there defends his own jurisdiction against those who would ramble to Rome to have their cause heard and judged there Neither will you get any credit by those whom he speaks of and in those words you quote there is an intimation that the Romans then when he did write were not such as those were in the Apostles times Apostolo praedicante and I shall tell you why it was called the principal Church for a principle of Unitie so he from whence the Sacerdotal Unitie began and also by reflexion from the Imperial Seat And if you will object Saint Jerome's authoritie in his Comment upon the first to Timothy that he calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome the Rectour of the House of God which you say Saint Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of Truth I shall return you answer that this is not very much for other Bishops were called in ancient times Papae too and that he calleth him the Rectour of the House of God that is not much neither since every Bishop is so The Rectour of the Church in that place where he lives And this will appear to be less considerable if you will take notice that in his Comment upon the first Ep. to Tim. the third chapter upon these words A Bishop must be irreprehensible where he speaks of a Bishop in communi he sayes Aut Ecclesiae Princeps non erit so a Bishop in general with him is a Prince of the Church and also you know what opinion he had betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Read to this purpose his Epistle to Evagrius If you come upon me again with Saint Jerome to Damasus in an Epistle you may tell me what Epistle for he wrote more then one and his Title in some is as is set down plainly Hieronimus Damaso Surely Popes then had not that state or else Saint Jerom had little reverence towards him And you may see also how the Pope writes to him to resolve questions And is this any sign of the Popes Infallibilitie Well but you say in that Epistle you will tell me of to Damasus he saith To your Holyness that is To the Chair of Peter I am joyned in Communion Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built he that gathereth not with thee scattereth So you And shall I give you answer to this now then I may tell you that this doth but magnifie the honour of his own Commuion and yet not much neither if you will observe what he saith in his Comment upon Amos the 6. chapter Petra Christus est qui donavit Apostolis suis ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur Tu es Petrus c. Then Peter is not in his Opinion the onely Rock you see Moreover so the Fathers you say in the Council of Chalcedon at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. And what can you ever make of this that they did say so No more then thus much that the Successour of St. Peter spoke Doth this signifie that all the Personal pripriviledges which Saint Peter had Pope Leo had then there needed but him to determin all the Controversies Yea according to Saint Jerom before if he had had all those priviledges which Saint Peter had yet the Church should not be built upon him onely for the other Apostles were Rocks too Yea and is he Christs Successour also If he be not then that which you would fain arrogate to him belongs onely to Christ to be Head of the Universal Church To cut short you remit me to Statleton and Bellarmin who both shew most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief causes The places you say you will alledge though for the present you refer me to them What do you mean Sir to put me off to those adversaries or in the interim to satisfie me until you have ranged them into another discourse I need not send you to our men who have withstood those Champions foot to foot Junctusque Viro Vir. Saint Cyprian in the place before makes an exception against this supreme Tribunal for Appeals and the African Churches After this you seem to threaten me with further Demonstrations of particulars material to your cause Untill which time it becomes me in civilitie to wait and not to take the word out of your mouth or your work out of your hand I shall let you rise that you may have more strength for the next assault I could leave here but that our late Feast may hint you to think of the contest betwixt the Roman and other Churches about the observavation of Easter And were those Hereticks or Schismaticks that would not stand to the Roman determination herein And as for your earnest demand to know but the name of one of the Pastours Doctors or Preachers in those last thousand Ages Years which preceeded Luther I may conceive my self obliged then to give you some account hereof when you shall tell me whoever of all the Bishops of Rome in a vast insolency took upon him the Empire of the whole Church under the Title of Universal Bishop before Boniface the Third took it from Phocas his Donation Untill Gregorie's time inclusively there was no such Usurpation and you know what Gregorie said of John of Constantinople for his pretending to it that whosoever did made himself the forerunner of Antichrist But if I would answer the answer would be easie and it is ready you have it alreadie in a Testimonie out of Tertullian in his Prescriptions it may be you took no notice of it then nor did I urge it to this purpose by way of Application to our Church thus That which we are the Scriptures were from the beginning we are of them before it was otherwise before they were corrupted by you Then we are as ancient as may be for our Doctrine and Sacraments they are found in the Records of Scripture And if Campian says All the Fathers were his and yours we may say the Apostles are ours Nay the Fathers
from erring damnable by it Now by what Logick do you inferre that because the Church is secured from all damnable errour therefore according to my doctrine shee is not secured from other errours All you build upon this consequence falls to the ground Going on I find you by the way quarelling with one of the Cardinall vertues even Prudence her self which you intimate then only to have place when Religion is chosen by interest I pray do you thinke in earnest that men cannot proceed prudently in the choise of their Religion Then you conclude that all the force my former argument hath it hath from Scripture Is not my argument the better for this against you who professe to believe Scripture to be Gods undoubted word independently of the authority of the Church because it is clearly manifested to you to be so by its light as the Sun by his light Is it not a convincing argument which is strengthened with an authoritie acknowledged so firme Against a Heathen untill I had proved Scripture to him I would not use this argument 4. Presently I find you again stumbling at the sense in which I took the word damnable as if I should allow the following of the Church in other errours No Sir you cannot follow her in other errors because she cannot go before you in any errour not in any damnable errour as your own selves teach no nor in any other errour as in this very next argument is proved if you mark the force of it 5. The force then of my next Argument is this God commandeth us to obey the Church and hear her in obeying her and hearing her we follow Gods Command But no kind of errour little or great can be incurred by following Gods Command therefore we can be lead into no kind of errour by following the Church Again you your selves say it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour though it be not a damnable errour Wherefore if I can prove that we are obliged to follow the Church I shall prove also that shee cannot guide us into any kind of errour This I prove by that text Matthew 18. verse 18. If he will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a publican or a Heathen Therefore meerly and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held and truely according to Gods judgment deserving to be held a publican or Heathen but all we are obliged not to deserve to be held by Gods judgement Publicans or heathens Therefore all are obliged to hear the Church being that meerly and purely for not hearing her they are to be held and deservingly held according to Gods judgment Publicans and Heathens as is also further insinuated in the next verse where it is said this sentence shall be ratified in Heaven Now if any man reply that we are to heare the Church so long as she swerveth not from Gods word my answer is that to swerve from Gods word is to erre but this text proveth she cannot erre Ergo it proveth that she cannot swerve from Gods word and indeed if she could the meerly not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to Gods judgement a Publican or Heathen But you tell me this text is to be understood not of matters of faith or unbelief but of matters of trespasse between brother and brother and refractoriness in the person And that it respects excommunication by censure in which also it may erre Neither is a man bound to believe the censure is just unless it appears to be so This last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine for the unanimous opinion of learned men is That a man is bound to hold his superiours censure or command to be just unless the contrary appears evident See your own Doctors Chillingworth P. 308 N. 108. Hooker P. 310 311. N. 110. Laud P. 226. And indeed you bring all to this that when all comes to all you are the last judge to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred and not to the sentence of the Church for you reserve to your selfe the last judgement of her sentence to see whether it be just or no in your own private opinion Sir if the contrary be not evident the Church who is Superior is to be followed and obeyed If the contrary be evident it is impossible such a superior as the Church is assembled in a general Council should not mark that evidence without we will call that evident or not evident which is for our present turn to call evident or not evident That which is truly evident will of it selfe appear to be so at least to the most judicious upright and best instructed Prelates of the Church And this is to be said according to human Reason although they had no infallible promise of a more then humane assistance from the Holy Ghost Moreover Sir let us if you please not passe so farre as the Censure but let us make a stay in the mere consideration only of the cause for which the censure is given that the cause is not hearing the Church for this and meerly for this only cause according to the text this man is according to Gods judgement deservedly to be held as a Publican or Heathen and therefore if for this act of not hearing the Church the censure cometh to be after wards pronounced against him that censure will be made good in Heaven as the next verse clearly saith Wherefore it is impossible that this Censure should be unjust if he truly be guilty of not hearing the Church It is true that a man may by false information or some such way be judged to be guilty of not hearing the Church when really he is not guilty and so there may be an errour in the mistake of the fact and thus Clave errante in mater of fact the sentence will not be ratified in Heaven But this is nothing to the purpose for still he who is truly guilty of not hearing the Church is for that only fact and meerly for that cause to be held deservedly according to Gods judgment as a publican or Heathen And so the Church cannot errour in denouncing Excommunication against such a person And hence you see how truely miserable such a person is and how it must needs be damnable unto him not to heare the Church which not to hear maketh a man to be held as a Publican or Heathen most deservedly and according to Gods owne judgement To hold himself not to deserve this punishment is to hold against Scripture You highly wrong Saint Athanasius to say he heard not the Church See my 9. Number These my Premisses being made good it followeth clearly that no man is secure in conscience who will not obey the Church And hence again it followeth that this Church cannot erre at least damnably for else a Man might in Conscience be bound to follow a damnable errour No she cannot erre in an
might gaine more credit to their error by holinesse of life as Socinus and others You come then to refute my arguments First it is so far from being contrary from that text you err not knowing the Scriptures that it is most agreeable to it For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of the Scripture is to permit such and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures as are most fit to erre in the interpretation of them And is this a good refutation And therefore the meaning of our Saviour must be according to your use they erred because they have the knowledge of the Scriptures which they mis-interpreted Shift you how you will you cannot evade was the knowledge of the Scriptures the cause of their error no that is contrary to our Saviour who said you err not knowing the Scriptures was it necessary that those who did know the Scriptures should mis-interpret them no for then that will by a recideration come into the same inconvenience for then the knowledge will be a certain mean at least in a large sense of this mis-interpretation And so it would be our best way to know nothing of Scripture that so we may not err 3. Can we imagine that our Saviour Christ discoursed as you do that because by our fault the Scriptures are an occasion of mis-interpretation therefore the people should not commonly use them is this symbolicall to the sense of our Saviour's words you err not knowing the Scriptures 4. Our Saviour then by you rebukes their mis-interpretation then he would have them know the Scriptures better not have the people deprived of them 5. There is a double knowledge as to this purpose 1. An habituall Knowledge which is chiefly of the Principles in Scripture this they had in their mind Then there is an actuall Knowledge which consists in an application of those Principles to particular Conclusions of belief and practise They were wanting it seems in the later in that they did not so as they should consider that text in Moses which our Saviour makes use of for the Resurrection They might have inferred the Resurrection from that text and so not have erred Therefore had they more need to look over the Scriptures again and consider them better The saying of the Jew is good He that reads a book an hundred times is not like him that readeth it an hundred times and one The oftner we read it especially the Bible the more we see in it But you bring a corroboration of your answer specially being licensed to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority of the Church if they stand in their way Sir this will not do 1. We licence them not to crosse all Antiquity we need not give them such a direction and surely if they should you would have no cause to blame them We have liberty to use that of the Philosopher in his Rhet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you look to that who contradict God and Fathers and Doctors 2. They cannot intend surely the crossing of all Antiquity for certainly they do not know all Antiquity yea if you speak all Antiquity with a full universality there are few of your own learned men that know it And therefore if any of their interpretations doth crosse antiquity it doth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is but by accident And in things necessary they are not so like to do so 3. Who is there of all your men that have proved this proposition that the Consent of the Fathers supposed makes an argument of Divine Faith therefore though we love their company yet we desire to see our way But object to us nothing but that which is proper How shall your men know that what they hold doth not crosse all Antiquity The Authority of the Church gives them neither faith of it nor Knowledge Yea some of yours say omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic You go on And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding the knowledge of the Scripture c. unto secondly Ans You make your self sport with the Ambiguity of the word Knowledge You mean it by way of a Science as Physick we do not say that Trades-men make any knowledge of Divinity so as to give an account of the principles of Divinity in the body of it no but they may have a knowledge of Scripture sufficient for their use although they do not teach others As if there were plain principles of Physick in our language we might make use them for our selves as Tiberius said after thirty years of age he would laugh at those who did need a Physitian you are deceived then or would deceive in the fallacie of consequent though all Science be knowledge all knowledge is not Science for knowledge is more generall and therefore surely of it self doth not inferre the most perfect species You say secondly you in vaine object that of St. Paul that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation c. unto thirdly wherein you allow the truth of the text with your gloss namely not as they are interpreted by every giddy fansie but by Tim. who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of by orall tradition Ans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what will you get by this answer If you understand by orall tradition such doctrines of the Gospell which were first preached afterwards written we grant you the use of such orall traditions but this boots you not for you must have traditions in point of faith besides what is written and such we deny unto you that Timothy had And I prove my deniall by your own words For how could Timothy understand Scripture by what was beside Scripture you speake of his understanding the Scripture by tradition tradition of proper name is that which is beside Scripture in the matter of it and how can he by that which is different in matter understand the Scripture If you mean by orall Traditions some traditive interpretations as learned men call them of the more difficult passages of Scripture this indeed were more reasonable in the hypothesis as to Timothy but this is nothing to us unlesse you can tell us certainly how many and what they are If there were such and lost then your Church is lost 2. Againe we allow no giddy fansie to define the sense of Scripture but in things necessary and plain their own knowledge may be sufficient and their private judgement may be as safely exercised in the sence thereof as in the choice of your Religion But thirdly by your own words I will conclude against you a fortiori for if the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise who was a Teacher much more others since as Mr. Cressy and you afterwards affirm there is more requisite to a Minister to be believed than others If then they be able to make a Minister wise unto salvation then one of the People much more who according
is not this way Suppose God had promised the Kingdome of France a Monarchy Ergo the Kingdome of France say you is no Monarchy The true consequence is the Kingdome of France is this Monarchy Ans I am not displeased with mine own Argument if there can be no more said against it than is here I know no difference betwixt a King and a Monarch sufficient to ground a distinction and in the new Testament the greek word which signifies a King is usually applied to the expressing of Emperors And therefore if God had promised the Kingdom of France a Monarchy he should have promised it it self And so if God had promised the Church to be this way he should have promised it it self I had thought that as the object of the thing in humane speculation is before the act speculative so the object of person had been considered before acts practick otherwise the object of the person and the object of the thing do not differ Thus if the promise of this way to the Church be the promise of the Church its being this way then the terminus rei and the terminus personae is all one Therefore must this way be distinguished from the Church otherwise the Church hath nothing promised And how can this way be predicated of the Church in such a proposition the Church is this way when according to your principles the Church must have its existence by this way before it can be this way And so must have its being before its cause which amounts to a contradiction that it should be and not be for it must be before it is Yea if the Church is to be supposed before it be the way and yet is to have its consistence by this way this is to make that which is to be which also makes that which is not to be because it must not be before it be Yet he goes on The Church is this way which God promised it should be But to whom did he promise it To singulars before they are aggregated in the unity of a Church Then the singulars yet must be a Church before they be a Church because this way was promised you say to the Church If the diffused Church be the object of the promise to whom it is made then again how were the Christians without faith Or how had they faith without a Representative which is the way promised as he supposeth Yet again and it is so by the sure guidance of him who is the way and is with his Church ruling it until the consummation of the world And so Christ is regula regulans and the Church regula regulata So thâ—n at length my Adversary is come to my distinction onely he will not apply it as I did I said the Scripture is regula regulans the Church is regula regulata he saies now that Christ is regula regulans the Church is regula regulata So that in part he is come over to us in that he says the Church is the rule ruled and he or any other could hardly overcome us in the other that Christ should be the rule ruling and not by the Scripture Christ doth not now rule us immediately but by the Spirit and therefore is he said to be the Spirit of Christ neither doth the Spirit rule us immediately but by the word which the Spirit of Christ did inspire the Pen-men of Scripture in to this purpose So it remains that the Scripture is the word of Christ by his Spirit And by this word which was first delivered by his Spirit is Christ the way He is the way of merit by his death He is the way of example by his life He is the way of precept and direction by his word If he divides the word from the Spirit he makes it not the word of God if he divides the Spirit from the word so that the Spirit should direct beside the word he runs into Enthusiasmes The Spirit hath it selfe to the word as the Dictator the Apostles have themselves and the Prophets to the word as the Pen-men The word hath it self to us as the rule which from God through Christ by his Spirit in the Pen-men of Scripture is to direct us unto our Supernaturall end Therefore saith St. Paul let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisedome Colos 3.16 To conclude then this Answer since Christ is now confessed to be the rule ruling he is the rule ruling either by his Church or by his word If by his Church as my Adversary how is this Church to be ruled since this is the rule ruled By his Spirit they will say well but how In a Councell they will say confirmed by the Pope But for the first three hundred yeares their was no Councill nor Pope in their sence for more How then Then by his Spirit causally in the word according to which the Arch-Bishop of Collen resolved to reform his Church for which he was cited before the Emperour and excomunicated afterwards by the Pope in the yeare 1546. But being ruled by him there is not the least danger that it will swerve from the word of God and you may well follow such a Guide with blinde obedience So my Antagonist goes on upon the Church Ans To this passage much may be said First that the former words are wisely put together si non caste tamen caute For there is a reserve of sense in which they are true namely in sensu composito whilst it is ruled by Christ there is not the least danger of swerving from the word of God but it is yet to be proved that it will always be ruled by Christ Make this sure and we have done But if it had always been ruled by Christ it would not have violated his institution of Communion under both kinds Put this then into a forme of discourse that which is ruled by Christ doth not swerve from his word the Church of Rome is ruled by Christ therefore and we limit the major so far as it is ruled by Christ it doth not swerve from the word it is not true that it never swerves unlesse it be true that it is always ruled by Christ but then we deny the Assumption for it is not always ruled by Christ 2. We note here that the rule Christ rules us by is his word for so it is said here being ruled by Christ it will not swerve from his word So then by his own words Christ's adequate rule is his word otherwise we might be ruled by him and yet swerve from his word And also consequently if we follow his word we follow him And those that do not follow his word do not follow him Thirdly we must differ with him upon the point of blinde obedience therefore whereas he saies you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedience we say absolutely blind obedience is not rationall it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any sense and then we say
things necessary to salvation But we are referred to Scripture as appears by those texts and not to an infallible Judge for ought appears clear by my Adversary therefore the Scripture plainly sets down all things necessary to salvation the consequence is plain as denying the reason of an infallible Judge which should be because we are not sufficiently furnished in Scripture unto things of faith then if we be referred to Scripture in point of faith as there is no need of tradition to supply our faith in the matter so neither is there an infallible Judge necessary to supply the want of the Scriptures manner of expression For all the Controversie betwixt us in point of Scripture must be reduced to these two either that all which is to be believed is not contained in Scripture and this brings in tradition with them or that which is in Scripture is not plainly enough set down and this brings in the question of the infallible Judge So then if we be referred to Scripture in point of faith we need no infallible Church either for object or infallible resolution of faith Now as for the minor that we are referred to Scripture those texts prove sufficiently and he cannot deny it that we are referred to an infallible Judge he hath not yet proved and I deny it Yea what will they say if the last text onely proves an Elench Thus. If the cause of error be not knowing the Scriptures then the Scriptures doe plainly contain all things necessary but the cause of erring assigned here by Christ St. Mark 12.24.28 is the not knowing of the Scriptures The minor is Scripture the consequence also would be able to maintain it self but that they think that we cannot draw a consequent universall from an antecedent particular for the text there is applyed to a particular point of the Resurrection To this we answer first simply we cannot argue an universall conclusion from particular premisses because the genus contains potentially more than one species but they know that the resurrection is a main point and comprehensive of more so that Aquinas might well conclude him to be an Heretick that denied the immortallity of the Soul because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he denied the Resurrection It includes also the Resurrection of Christ 1. Ep. Cor. 15.13 If there be no Resurrection from the dead then Christ is not risen So then if by the Scripture we may be right in the knowledge of our Resurrection and consequently in the knowledge of Christs Resurrection which supposeth his death that his Incarnation his Incarnation God the Father as he speaks if ye had known me ye had known my Father also then it doth plainly enough set down that which supposeth as much as was necessary for those in the time of the Law because they had enough to bring them into the hope of the Resurrection unlesse we say with the Socinians that they had no hope of the Resurrection And secondly if the Resurrection was sufficiently declared in the old Testament it being so fundamentall a point what reason can be given why other points which are also necessary should not likewise be plainly delivered And thirdly if that and other points were competently enough revealed in the old Testament that the cause of erring was the not knowing of the Scriptures not the not knowing of the Church then surely the new Testament which is the old revealed doth set down that and other points with sufficient plainnesse unto salvation And this is sufficient to our purpose As for the consequence then from the former Text which he thinks more probable that because they did err therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture I answer first he argues ab esse ad probabile which is not rationall ab esse ad posse is good But we cannot argue that because such a thing is come to passe that therefore it was probable it should for then because Adam did sin we must say it was probable he should sin and so he had not been created with a posse peccare and a posse non peccare in equall freedom for probability must arise from an inclination And if they say that the case is different from the fall of man and therefore depravation by the fall doth non incline the power of erring to an actuall error as the power of sinning unto an actuall sin we answer first that they had not best enlarge the corruption of nature by the fall lest they bring the Trent Council as to this point in danger of error and secondly we say that if they exclude not the grace of God from taking direction by the Church so neither do we exclude the grace of God from taking direction by the Scripture and if they say men cannot err if with grace or by it they take the guidance of the Church then surely with grace or by grace it may be as probable not to err through the knowledge of the Scripture and therefore his consequence of more probability that the Scriptures are not plain because they did err is vain Secondly if those who erred were but a part and sect of the Jews and those that did not err might be the greater number if not the soberer then it will follow by his own argument that this was plainly enough set down in Scripture Thirdly he supposeth that which is not to be supposed if he thinks that we hold things so plainly delivered in Scripture as that we cannot err whether we will keep the way or not for Scripture doth directly work upon the understanding grace upon the will It is therefore sufficient to us to say that things necessary are so clearly proposed in Scripture as that if we be dilligent to know and follow Scripture we need no infallibility of the Church Fourthly he might have been advised that this discourse of his will return upon him to the prejudice of their Church for it should seem then as hath been often noted things are not so plainly defined by their Church since there are such differences amongst them even in grand points Fifthly we distinguish betwixt knowledge in habitu and knowledge in actu their habituall knowledge of the Resurrection in Scripture might be good and it might be plainly enough exhibited but they were defective in the actuall knowledge in not considering those principles of Scripture which might have concluded it according as our Saviour doth upon the place And surely as the not considering is the moral cause of most of our evil actions according to that of the Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore also saith David I have considered my ways and turned my feet into thy Testimonies so also is the not considering Scripture the cause of all or most of our errors at least the cause of the danger in the errors we have and if they would study the Scripture affectionately they could not err as they do The Principles of Scripture are sufficient