doth now infallibly teach the Church in all definitions And then a second that it is his duty to do so Let them learn their duty not to tell God his duty Did the Holy Ghost do his duty when Cajaphas and the Assembly condemned Christ And why did not the Holy Ghost make eight hundred Bishops in Ariminum as infallible without a Pope as the forty Bishops in the Trent Council whereof some might be made Bishops not because they did not differ from the rest but that they might not differ in the Roman Faith though against the Catholique faith And if they put the difference in this compare upon a Pope in Trent Council none in Ariminum though that answer will not serve as before since Praelats have a also a power of calling Councils as my Adversary before in some cases why should not the Holy Ghost rather assist eight hundred Praelats without a Pope then forty with As to the eighth answer he confesseth the substance of it that for the first three hundred yeares there was no General Council and tells us the cause for persecution no Council could be gathered But this satisfieth not God is not wanting in necessaries nor abundant in superfluities as one of theirs saies If councils had been allwaies necessary he could have provided against persecutions or for a Council notwithstanding And why not in time of persecutions as well as in the times of the Apostles Were not those times of persecution Neither is that a sufficient reason because all this time the former doctrine of the Apostles remained so fresh and so notoriously the Tradition of the Church diffused and there remained also so universal a respect and obedience to the Chief Bishop of the Church Ans these three causes will not make one sound one For by the first he means the known doctrine of the Apostles as delivered in writing or not if so then why may not we by the same cause sufficiently be directed by the word written And as to the second if he joyns Tradition of the Church as notoriously diffused as a social mean of the direction it may be denied upon this account only here for that other Traditions of Heretiques were then mingled in the Church with pretense of coming from the Apostles And therefore the Traditions of the Church was notoriously not distinguished And as to the third it is notoriously false that then there was a chief Bishop in their sense in those times For how then could equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be appointed in the Nicene Council if the Bishop of Rome had been Chief before how could St. Cyprian have said that all the Apostles were equall pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis How could the African Council have then cut off appeals to Rome Then had there been no need of the feigning of a Canon to this purpose in the Nicene Council How could St. Ierom have said that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in communi in his Epistle to Evagrious Neither was there such obedience then performed by them to the Praelats in all places as may appear by the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians where he speaks of great Schisms And also by Ignatius his earnest exhortations of submission to them Whence the Quartodecim ani although they opposed nothing clearely set down in Scripture were judged Heretikes for opposing the doctrin of the first Church made evidently known by fresh Tradition Ans First if they will believe their Alphonsus de castro they were not sententially declared Heretikes because they were excommunicated Indeed Victor would have excommunicated then fecisset nisi Irenaeus illum ob hoc redarguisset he would have done it if Irenaeus had not chid him for this By the way then was this also obedience to the chief Bishop to chide him So Alphons in his 12. b. de haer In verbo pascha Yea 2. They may know that Eusebius doth give an account of the Asian observation to come from as good Tradition as the the other And surely the Asian Church was therfore the western and therefore was it not the doctrin of the first Church Yea also by the way how was Tradition of the Church notoriously diffused when there was Tradition against Tradition And herein also did the Brittish Churches which Tertullian speakes of differ from the western following the Eastern Church 3. Heresie is some times largely taken and doth then respect Schism of proper name and so in a large sense it might by some be called Heresie although the matter of difference was no doctrin of faith Ex verbis male prolatis oritur Haeresis So Hereticks in a propriety of speech they could not be 14. Alphonsus doth distinguish here upon in the same place and saies they were accounted Hereticks not because they did simply observe it then sed quia ita esse necessario faciendum credebant And this then alters the case And he explains himself further because this did include a necessity of observeing Judaical ceremonies even after Christ's his coming And so then this was contrary to the word written And then this was not a Tradition 5. They here shew the pride of Rome to offer to cut off from her comunion all those who were of the other perswasion who were not few as may be seen in Eusebius's 5. B. 24.5 Ch. for a thing simply of free observation wherein difference makes no variance a◠Irenaeus sent word to their Victor ch 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference of a fast and so of a feast doth commend the agreement of faith He goes on now as the Church could want Councils for so many years so it could want Councils for the short space of schism Right But then so can it want Councils still and therefore God hath not bound us over to the Church for our absolute direction upon necessity of Salvation Councils are necessary to infallible direction so my Adversaries hold The Church for three hundred years and in time of a Schism can want Councils as my Adversary here so then there is no absolute necessity of their infallibility And indeed there was much need of Councils in that space of the first three hundred years in regard of Divisions as since and then if God provided sufficiently for his Church without them he can and will do so still And this is confirmed by my Adversary by these words of his for the neccessity of new declarations is not so frequent at least in any high degree of necessity calling for instant remedy and remedy of this nature only And he may goe on and say it not upon my opinion but for himself and ex animo that Scripture alone will remedy this necessity He needed not to put in you say And as to that which he saies that there remained many definitions oft former councils and Traditions of the Church which alone served Gods church these we have spoken to sufficiently before Either the Definitions were concluded out of principles
as to his own person but not in matters of Faith as to the Church I beleeve that the Church is the Spouse of Christ and that she is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing as to that part which is in Heaven and that the other part of the Church as invisible which is not yet in Heaven shall be without spot or wrinkle or any such thing when it cometh up to Heaven But I do not beleeve that that Text is meant of the Church visible For all here glorious or none not all glorious here therefore none For you find it in the Text that it is to be presented as a glorious Church namely as in the whole But you will not say that every Member of the visible Church is here glorious without spot without wrinkle or any such thing If you do say so you contradict Bellarmin in his third Book of the Militant Church the second chapter who there includes in his Definition of the Church visible even Reprobates wicked and ungodly men and requires there no internal virtue for the constitution of a Member of the Church but onely an external profession of Faith and communion of Sacraments And besides you know glory which is a perfection of Grace doth not belong to the way but the Country in Heaven And besides if you will not beleeve me in such an Exposition beleeve your Estius who with * In his Retractations p. 9. Ed. Frob. but this Quotation not added in my copy to him Saint Austin understands it upon good Reason of the Church invisible as you may see in Estius Comment upon the place And here by the way we have another Testimony of your own against you if you account your Argument from this Text sufficient to your cause And we have St. Austins authority to boot as Estius quotes him And moreover Holynesse is no formal principle of our direction especially in points of Faith It is Holy because it follows and as it follows the Rule and so should we in faith and manners And therefore if it were to be understood of the Visible Church as it is not yet you conclude nothing for your turn upon this consideration To hasten the next Text is formerly urged the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth Yet squeeze it and presse it and make the best use of it you can it will not afford your inference you would make from it For first some and also very reasonably will refer this Expression not to the Church but to the Mystery of Godlinesse which follows and so they make it as an Hebrew form of setting out some high point and grand Doctrine and then it goes thus A Pillar and Ground of Truth and without Controversie a great Mystery of Godliness is this namely God manifested in the flesh c. If so your interesse in it is sunk and indeed the copulative And and without Controversie doth not seem so well and so close to knit else But it being given not granted that that Criticisme is not sufficient what of all that For Saint Irenaeus as before gives this Eulogy to the Scripture The Scripture gives it to the Church Now to which doth this propertie belong first and absolutely To the Scripture or to the Church Not to the Church for the Church hath it from the Scripture Now that which hath it first hath its absolutely and independently upon that which follows therefore the Scripture is the absolute Pillar and ground of Truth Then there Faith hath sure footing there it sits down there it rests on that Ground upon that Pillar The Church then hath this Title but subordinately and what it saith cannot bind but conditionately to that which is the absolute Ground and Pillar of Truth For the Truth is the Pillar and Ground of the Church as Saint Chysostome saith upon the place Take it then of the Catholick Church not Roman The Text doth more set out the Office of the Church then the authority It doth hold it doth propose it doth uphold the Truth but this doth not convince or evince that whatsoever the Church doth hold we should also hold and upon that account also as if God had appointed the Church infallibly to conveigh to us whatsoever Truth and nothing but Truth And therefore may we and ought we to search the Scriptures as our Savâ—our speaks John 5.39 and by them examine whatsoever the Church saith as those of Beraea did that which was said by Saint Paul and they commended for it And therefore we cannot believe the Definitions of the Church upon its own word Nay can we also say that God doth now give unto the Church such assistance as then which was noted before and therefore we distinguish times not thinking there should be as much said of the Church now as when it included the Apostles and therefore supposing that the Church then did hold all that was true and nothing contrary yet we cannot say it of the Church now and therefore is not the cause of Faith under whose authority it must also passe beside the Divine Revelation to make it Catholique For the Church is conserved by the Truth as Estius also upon the place then thus where the ground of the Catholique Church is there is the ground of Catholique Faith The Scripture is the ground of the Catholique Church unlesse it be conserved by some other principle then by which it is constituted And it is conserved by the Truth saith he and thy word is Truth saith our Saviour John 17.17 And whereas he sayes that the Truth sustaineth the Church and the Church sustaineth the Truth and so one is the cause of the other we answer this is not availeable for you For in the same kinde of cause it cannot be for then we are in a circle but the Truth sustains the Church so as to continue it in its principles the Church sustains the Truth but by way of ministery which doth not make it to be a principle of Faith no not to us Neither do the other Texts speak for you as you would have them If the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church it doth not follow that then Catholique Faith must be built upon the proposalls of the Church Nothing shall prevail to the Condemnation of those who belong to the Church of God as invisible and nothing shall prevail not the Gates of Hell against the Church visible so as somewhere or other there shall not be some who shall professe the Christian Doctrine and Worship sufficiently to salvation The next Text speaks towards Excommunication which comes little into the question for the authority of the Church may proceed to Censure although we be not bound upon peril of want of Faith to submit our understandings to the definitions of the Church As to the authority we may submit so as to endure the censure though we do not submit our judgements as to believe the definitions As to the next place of Scripture
here is one place where the Father useth the words not in the Roman sence which may be made use of to another pupose about your opinion of merit and also if you will not mean it here of deserving this makes some diminution of respect to the book and some advantage more I shall make of this chapter in its place Many lines in your fourteenth page you have afterwards wherein we have nothing but vaunts or repetitions I will not trouble you with the latter nor my self with the former But towards the end of that page you would order the matter so as to hold your own and yet to give Scripture its due respects And you seem to bring it to this determination that when there is an acknowledgement made that the Scriptures are in themselves the Word of God it doth not derogate from Scripture to hold that yet they are not known to us by an infallible ground that they are the Word of God but by the testimony of the Church which in shorter terms is expressed by others of your Church that the authoritie of the Scripture doth depend upon the Church But this will not serve the covering is too short For first this distinction is too narrow to extend to the difference betwixt us in particular points of faith Therefore if you will yield that points of Religion are to be examined and ended infallibly by Scripture when we know it to be the Word of God then we will onely stick to this Question But if you will still maintain the infallibilitie of the Church in all her definitions then your composition will not be sufficient although it could satisfie as to that particular But secondly It will not satisfie because you do not sufficiently provide for the honour of the Scriptures authoritie and therefore you derogate from Scripture in this although you did take away no honour from Scripture as in regard of its truth Do you lay it to heart that the many questions betwixt us is about the authoritie of the Scripture the formal Reason of credibilitie is the authoritie That which makes me to believe it to be the Truth of God as being his Word is the Authoritie For if the credibilitie doth rise from the truth of it in it self you destroy your own cause for that you confesse the Scripture to be the infallible Word of God then betwixt us simply about the Truth of the Scripture there is no contest And doe not you affirm that the authoritie of the Church is the Ground of Faith because you think that the Church by its authoritie is worthy to be believed since it is infallible But why then do you not grant this authority to the Scripture since you confess it to be infallible If the reason of believing the Church be the infallibility of it according to you why is not the infallibility of the Scripture the reason of believing it since it is confessed infallible And if you say you do believe it to be so by the authority of the Church then the formal reason of believing it is not the infallibility of the Scripture but of the Church and yet the infallibility of the Church shall be the formal reason of believing it But you say you must know the Scripture to be infallible that I cannot do but by the Church Well but do not you then see that you preferre the authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture for the Church with you is to be believed for it self for so it must be or else the Scripture must be believed for it self or else we shall have in Divinity no principium primo primum wherein to rest Now if the Scripture be to be believed for it self then we have ended the businesse If the Church be to be believed for it self then we prefer the Authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture then you derogate from the authority of Scripture Thirdly the Church hath authority or not It hath you say then of it self or not what will you say If of it self what hath a company of Christians more to say for themselves then others If you say the authority comes from succession others also have had a constant succession And it must come to one first society Well where had that society its authority of it self or not If of it self what by revelation beside Scripture or not If beside then the charge of Anabaptisticalness is fallen upon you What then From Scripture Well then the Scripture in regard of those Texts which concern the Church is to be believed for it self and then why not in others Fourthly The Word of God in the substance and matter of it was before the Church therefore because the Church was begotten by it and therefore it must be known before the Church Yea reconcile your Opinion with that of Bellarmine in his first Book De Verbo Dei cap. 20. The Rule of Catholique Faith must be certain and known for if it be not known then it will not be a Rule to us If it be not certain it cannot be a Rule If it be a known Rule against Anabaptists why not also a known Rule against Papists and therefore that it must be made manifest by the Church is not necessary for how was it made manifest to the first Church to be the rule As for the instance of yours that Christ was made manifest to many by the Testimony of the Baptist and of the Apostles before the Scriptures were written and yet this derogate not from Scripture We answer soon First It is yet to be proved whether the Church hath that inspiration as John Baptist and the Apostles had for the first planting of the Church until that be made good your Argumentation is not Secondly Although the New Testament was not written the Old was and Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles preached no other Doctrine then was contained in the Old So our Saviour If ye had believed Moses ye would have believed me for he wrote of me in the 5. of Saint Iohn the 46. verse Thirdly If Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles were believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church as the first Disciples did why may not the Scriptures be believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church If the Apostles were believed immediately without the Church in what they said why may they not be believed also in what they wrote And surely to goe a little more close and deep if we speak properly there is not so much a ground of Faith as a cause if with the Schoolmen we grant as we may that Faith is a supernatural habit infused by God which disposeth the understanding to assert that which is said by God is true because he saith it not because the Church saith it And if you say that the Scripture and the Church are not opposite true when the Church ruleth it self by Scripture But if the Question be which proposal is
faith but only Opinion or humane belief ANSVVER THe Paper may be resolved into a Supposition and a Reason and a Conclusion To these in order First The Supposition It is not sufficient to make one a Catholick that he believe the same things that a Catholick doth believe unless the Catholick Church be the Ground also of his belief c. as in the Amplification of it This Supposition is indeed the main Position of the Pontificians and that which is formally Constitutive of them in that Denomination so that the Answer to it is not made as to a private Opinion or the Opinion of a private Man but as to the General Tenet of their Church in the matter of it In the Terms the word Catholick is to be distinguished for if they mean thereby such an one as they account a Catholick viz. one subject to the Church of Rome upon its own Authority It is very true that None is such a Catholick but he that shall render his belief to them in all things upon this their Proposal and so whatsoever is the Material Object of their faith yet the Formal Object is the Definition of the Church of Rome But if there be a true Sense upon ancient Account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church then there may be in a true sense a Catholick now who doth not make the Church the last Resolutive of faith For where the Scripture was acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners also there the Authority of the Church was not the Determinative thereof And that it was will be made good if it be desired by several Testimonies But secondly give it suppose it that None is a Catholick in a right sense but he that believeth what the Church believeth because the Church believeth it yet the Romane will not gain his purpose thereby unless we would grant this Supposition also That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church which indeed is meant in the Paper though wisely not expressed But this supposition that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church is not to be yielded neither in regard of Comprehension for that makes a contradiction nor in regard of Dominion neither for other Churches have not submitted themselves to their Authority this needs no disproof from us till it hath a proof from them And thirdly If we should stand up to all that their Church in particular doth propose and if we should assent to it upon their Account we might be damned not for our want of faith but for Excess of faith in the Object Material and for the Error of faith in the Formal Object For we should believe more then is true if we should believe whatsoever they believe and somewhat also destructive of Articles in the Apostles Creed And we should also believe upon the wrong Inductive which is not the Authority of their Church as we may see now in the Answer to the Reason The Reason hath in it somewhat true somewhat false True that faith is to believe a thing because God revealeth it False that there is no Infallible way without a Miracle of his Revelation coming to us but by their Church which they suppose to be the Church its Proposition For if the question be This how shall we come to know whether the Church of Rome be the right Church upon the Authority whereof we must ground our faith Wherein shall we terminate our belief hereof In the Authority of the Church of Rome or not We are to believe that they say which God hath revealed but the Cause of our belief must be because the Church proposeth it So then we must believe the Church of Rome upon her own testimony and we must resolve all into this that the Church of Rome is the right Church although it be neither a Revelation nor a natural Principle such as this that The Whole is greater then the Part which indeed gave the Occasion of that Check which was given to Rome Greater is the Authority of the world then of a City Orbis quam Urbis S. Jerom. in Ep. ad Evagrium Wherefore if the faith of a Catholick must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it as is said in the Conclusion yet it is not necessary that this Church should be the Church of Rome For this in proportion would be to resolve our Perswasions into the Judgment of particular Men because a Particular Church which according to the Paper makes no Catholick faith but an Opinion or humane belief REPLY IN the Paper received the Position which I gave It is not sufficient c. is disliked because it makes the Catholick Church the Ground of our belief but in truth I find no reason given for such dislike or any thing said against it but what to me seems very strange and is this If there be a true sense upon ancient account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church c. To which I answer that I would fain know what Catholick upon ancient Account did not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable Contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Church S. Iren. l. 3. c. 4. saith We ought not to seek among others the truth which we may easily take and receive from the Church seeing that the Apostles have most fully laid up in her as into a rich Treasure-house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept all things which are of truth that every man that will may take out of her the drink of life For this is the Entrance of life but all the rest are Thieves and Robbers for which cause they are verily to be avoyded But those things which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loved and the tradition of truth is to be received And the said Iren. l. 1. c. 3. telleth us that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence the Apostles faith and that which they preached S. Cypr. Ep. ad Cornel. avoucheth that the Church alwayes holdeth that which she first knew See also his Ep. 69. ad Florentium And S. Aug. had so great an Estimation of the Church that he sticked not to say cont Ep. Manich. quam vocant Fundamentum c. 5. I would not believe the Gospel except the Authority of the Church did move me thereunto Moreover disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptism of Hereticks l. 1. cont Cresc he useth this discourse Although of this that the baptisme of Hereticks is true baptism there be no certain Example brought forth out of the Canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keep the truth of the said Scriptures when as we do that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the Authority of the Scriptures themselves doth commend That
and not private Spirit which I can esteem no better then a fantastical if not a fanatical Opinion and is Diametrically opposite to the words of the second of St. Peter 1.20 No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation And all this spoken here and in the Position c. of the Church is meant of such a Church as does truely deserve the name of Catholick and so it will appear that all the discourse in this paper I received of the Roman Church considered as a Particular Church or any other Particular Church is but Impertinent and Extravagant Now also I must assure the Answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome the formal Object of their Faith as he doth impose upon them for they acknowledge that to be the Revelation of God or the authority of God revealing which causes their Belief to the Supernatural and Divine and not onely Natural and Humane as is the Belief that there is such a City as Rome or that there is a William the Conquerour c. which kind of faith is All that Hereticks have and All such as do not ground their Belief upon the Authority of the Church I cannot also but observe in the received paper that it is improperly enough called Excess of faith as it is there opposed to want of faith to believe more then Necessary for the Number of things believed does not alter the Nature of faith it self And lastly I must tax him of false alledging the words in the Reason thus there is no infallible way without a Miracle of his Gods Revelation coming to us but by their Church whereas in the Paper delivered it is the Church abstracting from all Particular Churches and meaning the true Church which soever it is And this is done but to make way for that needless Excursion which there follows THE REJOYNDER SIR THere is no great reason for me to rejoyn First because you wave the Application of your Discourse as to the Roman Church which is not ordinary for those of your Profession when they speak highly of the Catholique Church Secondly Because I may let you alone to answer the first paper with your second as to the main of it Thirdly Because the greatest part of it hath one fault not to conclude contradictorily Yet in Christian respects to Truth and You I shall endeavour meekly some return to your Reply and to differ as little as may be from you I shall mostly follow your own Order In the beginning you dislike my dislike of the ground of Faith without giving you any Reason Answer I intended my answer as near as I could guesse to the design of your paper for the Roman Church by Obedience to the Bishop whereof Bellarmine in his Catechism Englished p. 65. 6 7. doth describe the Catholique Church You will excuse me then if I took the course to make my answer compendiously sufficient to that drift if you will hold with Papists herein And if you would confesse you meant the Roman Church by the Catholique then I have given you such a Reason against your Position as you will say nothing to And you may consider that you directed your paper as to a Protestant who is not contradistinguished to a Catholique but to a Papist if you be a Papist why doe you dissemble it to me If you be not why do we dispute And this Apology may be enough also to refute all your Objections against me of impertinencies and excursions and untrue Allegations if you will take notice also of my Parenthesis And now my Reason intimated in a promise shall be made good in performance And since you will in the question about the Catholique Church abstract from the Roman and all other particulars I shall give some account of Catholiques who did not make the authority of the Catholique Church the ground and cause of their Beleef whereby onely God his Revelation cometh to us infallibly as you expresse your self in your first paper but this Prerogative they ascribed to the Holy Scripture to be it wherein and whereby we are infallibly assured of Gods Will as to what we should beleeve and do in order to salvation That the authority of the Catholique Church is of use towards Faith we deny not but the cause and ground of Faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertaind of the mind of God is not the Proposition of the Church but the Word of God And such being the state of the question betwixt us I shall for your shower of authorities you say you could power out against me give you or shew you a cloud of witnesses as the Apostle speaks Hebr. 12.1 against you Your shower could not wet me through but this cloud may direct you home This Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Church and Scriptures as you may see by the 8.19 20 21. Articles and therefore it is not my Opinion will appear not to be new but agreeable to ancient Catholiques in your own esteem The first shall be Saint Irenaeus Have you appealed to Saint Irenaeus unto Saint Irenaeus shall you goe He in his third book first chapter first words thus We have not known the disposing of our salvation by any other then those by whom the Gospel came to us which then indeed they preached afterwards delivered it to us in the Scriptures by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith So he Now that which is delivered in Scripture by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of Faith is the ground and cause of our Faith And such is the Gospel according to this Testimony The next for us is Clemens Alexandrinus in the seventh of his Stromata towards the end in the 757. p. of the Greek and Latine Edition He which is to be believed by himself reasonably is worthy to be believed by the Lords Scripture and Voice working by the Lord inwardly to the benefit of men So he Then according to him the Holy Scripture is not worthy to be beleeved by men but men are worthy of beleef by it And therefore that must ground our Faith because it is it whereby we beleeve others And therefore he saith in the following words Surely we use it as the Criterium for finding out of things And therefore points are to be decided and determined by authority of it which is his chief discourse against Heretiques even to the end of that book And if you please to peruse and consider it you shall find there that in his judgement the Catholique Church which he also there commends doth not conserve it self in that denomination by its own authority but by the Rule of Scripture Now that which rules the whole rules the parts the Scripture rules the whole then us So Origen upon Saint Matthew Hom. 25. We ought not therefore for confirmation of Doctrine to swear our own apprehensions and to bring into witnesse those which every one of us doth
understand and think to be according to Truth unless he shall shew them to be holy out of that which is contained in the Divine Scriptures as in the certain Temples of God what can be more to our purpose Then the Scripture is the Ground of Doctrines then of Faith As for Athanasius we need not his words knowing his practice of holding the equality of the Divine Nature in the second Person the Son of God against all the World Yet he speaks as he did if you will look upon him about the Incarnation of the Word at the latter end But then having taken occasion by these if thou wilt read the Divine Books and wilt apply thy minde to them shalt learn out of them more plainly and more perfectly the truth of what we have said So he Now where the Truth is learned more plainly and perfectly there is the ground of Truth In the Divine writings is the truth of those things more plainly and more perfectly learned After the same manner doth Tertullian bring in his suffrage in his Book of Praescriptions a little after the beginning of it thus Do we prove the Faith by the Persons or prove the Persons by the Faith And again Faith consists in the rule You have the Law and Salvation by the observation of it And soon after To know nothing against the rule is to know all things And again That which we are the Scriptures were from the beginning we are of them before it was otherwise before they were corrupted by you So he besides other passages wherein he witnesseth for us Saint Ambrose giveth us also his voice in his first Book to Gratian chap. 4. in the beginning thus But I will not that you believe an Argument O holy Emperour and our disputation let us ask the Scripture let us ask the Apostles let us ask the Prophets Then we are to be determined in our Belief by the Scriptures Saint Cyprian also who for order of time should have been put before gives his verdict for us in the beginning of his sixth Sermon concerning the Lords Prayer thus The Evangelical Precepts most beloved Brethren are nothing else but the Divine Magisteries the foundations of building our Hope the firmaments of corroborating our Faith the nutriments of chearing our heart the Gubernacles of directing our journey the safegards of obtaining Salvation which while they do instruct the Docile mindes of Believers upon Earth bring them to the Kingdome of Heaven So the Father Where you see the Scriptures are asserted immediately to be the Ground and Firmanent of Faith Yea neither doth Saint Austin seem to speak onely for your cause In the seventh Tome in the third Chapter of the Unity of the Church against the Epistle of Petilianus in the beginning he hath these words But as I began to say let us not hear these things I say these things thou sayest but let us hear these things the Lord saith There are certainly the Books of the Lord whose authority we both consent unto we both believe we both are obedient to there let us seek our Church there let us discusse our cause And soon after Let those things be taken out of your way which against one another we recite not out of the Divine Canonical books but otherwise And soon after Some may ask why I would have these things taken out of the way since if they brought forth your Communion is invincible he answers because I would not have the Church demonstrated by Humane Documents but by Divine Oracles and so to the end of the Chapter which he concludes thus therefore let us seek it the Church in the Holy Canonical Scriptures I have now made good my words to give you Catholick Testimonies on our side Amongst which Saint Austins authority gives advantage to plant Arguments upon thus If in businesses of dispute we must hear what the Lord saith not what man saith then the Scripture is the ground not humane authority But let us not hear what I say or thou saist saith the Father but what the Lord saith Again Where we must seek the Church there we must resolve our Faith But we must seek the Church in the Scriptures as the Father saith If the Church is to be proved by the Scriptures then the Scriptures are the ground of Faith because they are the ground of the Church there is no resolution of Faith but in that which is indemonstrable therefore not in the Church because that is demonstrated by the Scriptures as he saith Again Divine Oracles are the ground of Faith the Scriptures are the Divine Oracles as he saith as the Scripture saith as Saint Ignatius saith in his Epistle to the Church of Sâ—â—yrna Indeed the proper object of Faith Catholick is the Word of God not the Word of Man And proportionable the cause of this Faith must be divine authority not any authority of Man As demonstrative reason makes Science so humane authority make Opinion but Faith is an assent to that which is spoken by God as true because he speaketh it therefore the authority of the Church is not a mean apt to beget Faith because it is of another kinde and cannot exceed the nature of humane authority although it be the highest in the kinde if it be represented in a lawful General Council Yet even General Councils have erred and therefore they cannot he the Ground of Faith This is the prerogative of the Canonical books as the Father and all Antiquity calleth them but never did we hear of a Canonical Church The Scripture is the Canon is the rule not the Church The Church witnesseth Truth The Church keepeth Truth The Church defendeth Truth The Church Representative in a Council determineth Controversies authoritatively not infallibly and therefore bindes not unto Faith but to Peace not to Faith in the Conscience but to Peace in the Church not affirmatively that we should say it is true because they say it but negatively that we should not rashly oppose it as false because they define it as true Hitherto we go for the honour of the Church Catholick not Roman And now I have given you some reason of our Faith It followes now in your Reply or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Curch Answ I say so too But what from thence To professe a belief that there is a Catholique Church whereof part is triumphant in Heaven part on Earth expectant and to professe my self to belong to the Catholique Church is not inclusive of your sense that the Catholique Church is the ground of our belief We believe the Catholique Church grounded in the Scripture or built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone as Saint Paul speaks Ephes 2.20 Secondly This is not to your purpose because the Catholique Church as it is an object of Belief must be considered as invisible whereas you intend the
Faith in the Gospel And this is illustrated by the Samaritanes beleeving Christ through the testimony of the woman but when they came to Christ and saw him They said unto the woman we believe no more for thy saying for we have heard and seen that he indeed is the Saviour of the world the Christ John 4.42 So Saint Austin might be moved by the voyce of the Church to give an ear to the Truth of the Gospel and yet was settled in the Beleef of it from its self by the Spirit of God When he did beleeve the immediate cause of his Divine Faith was from the Gospel by the Spirit of God although before he did beleeve he was moved to think well of the Gospel by the authority of the Church So he did not belive the Gospel by the authority of the Church as a Theological principle but as an outward mean and help thereunto For the authority of the Church could not by its testimony of the Gospel make it properly credible because the testimony of the Church is to be made true by it And if it be not true in it self then the testimony is false So that before we know whether the Gospel be true we know not whether the testimony of the Church be true As also we cannot tell how to beleeve that the Church should alwayes give a true testimony as you suppose in every point but by the Scripture And therefore there is no ground or rest for Faith but in the Scripture Since if we beleeve the Church because the Scripture gives testimony of it and then the Scripture because the Church gives testimony thereof we must first beleeve the Scripture before we beleeve the Church Therefore we must terminate our Faith in the Scripture and if we do beleeve it beleeve it for it self it being the first credible Fifthly Look to the end of that chapter and there after he had disputed subtilly he doth conclude soberly But God forbid that I should not beleeve the Gospel and then concludes against his Adversary from thence as the rule of the difference betwixt them for Beleeving that saith he I do not find how to beleeve you c. And that the Scripture is the Rule he went by you may see in his 32. chapter against Cresconius whether let me if you please refer you for brevitie None can overcome S. Austin but S. Austin And therefore I need not say any thing to the second testimony which is taken out of him against Cresconius Yet observe Although of this there is no example certainly brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also we keep the Truth of the Holy Scriptures in this when we do that which hath pleased the whole Church saith he Namely in that which is not a ruled case in Scripture as the question was about the Truth of the Baptisme of Hereticks It seems then if it had been determined in Scripture there had been an end of it that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive saith he And this property absolute belongs to it not to humanitie Whosoever doth fear to be deceived by the obscurity of the Question may ask counsel touching it of the Church whom without doubt the Scripture it self doth shew saith he First here is an obscure question about practice so are not all points Some are clear in Scripture and yet the Propsition is universall that we must believe every thing by the proposal of the Church as if we must beleeve nothing but what the Church defineth and whatsoever it doth define that we must beleeve Secondly VVe should ask counsel onely which doth not suppose an absolute determination Thirdly which Church the Scripture doth without doubt shew then the Church is to be proved by Scripture again And without doubt doth shew but doth not shew to be alwayes without doubt and infallible Fourthly he afterwards goeth about to prove it against him by testimonies out of Scripture But behold yet again in a third Testimony of Saint Austin No peaceable man will be against the Church Answer Saint Austin is again welcome I say so too and shall anon end with the whole Sentence And yet once more in a fourth Testimony Saint Austin It is of most insolent madness to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth VVe answer VVe say so too in things of indifferency which every particular Church hath power in for it self and the Catholicke Church for all And yet all Catholick practices are not now observed by the Church of Rome as for one Infant Communion But according to the Father if the Authority of the Scripture doth prescribe which of these is to be done it is not to be doubted that we should do so as we read In such things then which are defined by Scripture we know what we should do intuitively to Scripture without asking counsel of the Church As certainly I may believe that Jesus is the Christ that he that believeth shall be saved immediately out of Scripture and not upon the Churches proposal And now I have delivered you from your fear of my rejecting the Fathers Surely we should love the Fathers though they were our Enemies and we have no reason to fear them when they are our Friends Therefore if you please to give me leave so far let me say as Nilus the Archbishop of Thessalonica as the Book bears title said in his first Book about the Primacy of the Pope or the difference between the Greek and Latin Churches It is very unreasonable that you who have not the Fathers for your examples should of your selves understand that which is better and we who have the Fathers should not Afterwards in your Reply you come to upbraid me with Devotion to modern men But this Belief of yours concerning me is not well grounded we delight not our selves in being Servants to Men in matters of Faith What is true we like in any what is not true we do not like in any In Divine writings we take all for there we consider not so much what is said as who saith in Humane Writings we pick for we consider not who speaketh but what is said agreeable to the Scriptures Therefore with them we deal as Saint Austin with Saint Cyprians authority in the forenamed chapter against Cresc What we find in them which is agreeable to the Canonical Scripture we receive with commendation what doth not with their leaves we leave But to make as short work with them as I can I answer first as many testimonies and more clear might be found in them against you I hope if those testimonies be for you let one be set against the other And if you say I should be moved by them because they are ours I answer Secondly If they agree with the sense of the Fathers you cannot condemn them if they do not agree we do Thirdly It is possible to be Even with you in the same kind by a retaliation of Pontificians against you But Fourthly I could
finde in my heart not to say a word to them that you might see I do not give them that respect as to the Fathers And yet take the strength of all their authorities together and make of them an accumulative argument as we may speak yet they do not conclude your cause Calvin and his Schollar in their sayings affirm no more then that which we acknowledge not from them that the Church shall by the assistance of the Spirit be sufficiently furnished with necessary Doctrine unto Salvation but those of the Church invisible may be saved though the Church visible be not Infallible and by consequence not the ground of Faith As for Doctor Saravia's passage I answer it doth not come up close to your purpose The H. G. which beareth rule in the Church objectively is the true Interpreter of Scripture and thus it is not for you And if you understand the Church objectively yet first the matter he seems to speak to is of Discipline about Government of the Church depending upon Primitive Example but we are upon points of Faith Secondly He cannot be contrary to himselfe when he acts as he did formerly in the time of the Apostles but whether he doth so act now is a question yea no question Thirdly If you will with him and from him draw the Government of the Church to be proportionably Episcopal with all my heart I reject them that reject it And your Adversaries of Wittenberg confesse nothing for you The rule they speak of namely Prophetical and Apostolical preaching c. it is the Word of God written according to which she is bound to interpret those places which are obscure and to judge of Doctrines according to the rule which she hath received so as her Interpretations are to be agreeable to the analogy of Faith and her judgements of Doctrines to be made according to the Law of the Word namely harder places are to be expounded by those which are more plain and Controversies to be decided by that rule And all this makes nothing for you For thus the Scripture is the Rule ruling and the Church is but the Rule ruled And thus we follow the Church as the Church followes the rule as Saint Paul saith Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ in the first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11. v. 1. Or if those Lutherans mean by a certain rule any rule distinguished from Scripture it is to be understood of some general heads of Christian Doctrine in proportion whereunto doubtfull places and Doctrines were to be judged But those heads were to be gathered out of Scripture And so all is resolved towards belief in Scripture but I think no man can see how they should say such a rule which was not Scripture was confirmed by miracles So for them And for Doctor Field if you will go through the twentieth chapter of the fourth Book you shall finde nothing in him contrary to this Doctrine For he saith plainly that though the Canonical Books are received by way of Tradition yet the Scriptures have not their authority from the approbation of the Church but they win credit of themselves and yeild satisfaction to all men of their Divine Truth whence we judge that the Church which receiveth them is led by the Spirit of God Observe not because the Church is led by the Spirit of God therefore doth he say she receiveth them but because she receiveth them therefore we judge she is led by the Spirit of God And as for his Rule of Faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles what is he like to mean but the Apostles Creed which he saith there was delivered in the Church as a Rule of her Faith But even this binds not by authority of the Church or upon Vertue of Tradition but by proportion to Scripture where it is found in particulars of matter though not in form of a Creed We confesse also that we should search out the true Church as the same Doctour saith We confesse that the Catholick Church is the Houshold of Faith the Spouse of Christ the Church of the Living God and that we should embrace her Communion and rest in her judgement Yes but how Not ultimately not absolutely not in what so ever she saith because shee saith it but in what so ever shee saith from the Lord. For although she doth goe by an infallible Rule yet are we not sure she goeth by it infallibly Therefore though wee rest in her judgements as to Peace yet can wee not rest in her judgements as to Truth because our understandings are not free to assent to what man will as being bound to assent to that onely which is grounded in the Word of God in matters of Faith And now might I Vie with you in number of Pontificians against you See Durand in his Prologue upon the Sentences where he hath more to our purpose then is necessary to be Transcribed Read him your self Gerson also in his Sermon concerning Errours against Faith and Manners about the Precept Thou shalt not kill saith thus More freely more purely more truely more speedily is Truth found out and Errour reproved if the Divine Law alone be constituted as Judge according to the consideration of Aristotle He which makes the Law the Judge makes God but he that addes Man addes a Beast Panormitanus also upon the 5. of the Decret concerning almes in chap. qualiter quando The saying of any Saint established with the Authorities of the New or Old Testament is preferred before a Papal Constitution even in decision of Causes Also Ferus upon the 1 Epistle of Saint John 2. chapter in the 52.3 page of the Antuerpe Edition thus The Holy Ghost doth teach t is by the means of the Holy Scripture and Word Again The Holy Scripture is given to us as a certain sure Rule of Christian Doctrine And again in the same page For if having the Holy Scripture as a most certain Rule of Christian Doctrine set before our Eyes we notwithstanding teach things so unlike what would be done if the Scriptures were taken away And if you say now that there is added to those places Tradition in the Roman Edition after the Trent Council as is noted You will get nothing by that but shame to the Pontificians And now I think I am not much behind hand with you in Testimonies about the Question But then afterwards you presse harder upon me So you say but I do not yet feel the weight of any thing you say I beleeve the Creed and that the Church is Holy And I do not beleeve but know that from hence nothing is coming to your cause The Catholick Church makes not it self the ground of Faith but is grounded in it as before And how were the first Members of the Catholick Church made Christians but by the Word of God And from the Holynesse of it doth not follow infallibility by the Roman distinction which saith that the Pope may erre
your self See how you now differ from your selfe Before the ground of Believing was the authority of the Church now the authority of God revealing the cause of their belief Before you concluded Faith consisted in submitting the understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it now it is the authority of God revealing which causes their faith to be Divine As for the term thus the formal object is such under which and in respect whereunto any thing proceedeth if then Gods Revelation cometh not to us under the Proposal of the Church or as proposed by the Church then the cause is lost if it doth then grant me my term and affirm with me that the Pontificians hold so If not they are better then you And what means else their implicite faith unlesse we are to believe every thing as the Church believeth it and because the Church proposeth it as you said and if we be to beleive every thing as the Church believe it then is the Church the formal object of their faith since they are also bound not to doubt but simply to obey as Bellarmine tells us in his fourth Book of the Roman Bishop 5. chap. The other term you find fault with is excesse of faith You taxe it as improperly spoken But surely it will passe without any Grain of Salt or of allowance if we consider that Faith may be compared as to a particular object and so there is not an Excesse of Faith as to that but then it may be compared as to many objects and so though we do not more believe one thing then we should if we should indeed believe it yet may we believe more then we should If we believe those things which are not at all to be believed And thus if we should believe whatsoever the Church of Rome proposeth we might be destroyed for excesse of Faith The Church of Rome is peccant in excesse of Faith by believing more points then it should believe and this is the reason why our Divinity is in negatives as to differences with them because their Divinity in differences to us is in additions SIR If you will excuse me for being so long I shall now conclude with the whole conclusion of Saint Austin whereof you gave me but part Against Reason no Sober Man will go against Scriptures no Christian then Christians should go by Scriptures against the Church no Peace-maker The Roman Catholick's first Treatise How in these times in which there be so many Religious the true Religion may certainly be found out The Preface THE Romane Catholicks have often foretold that by permitting freely to all sorts of people whatsoever the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother Tongue multitudes of New Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberless Number and as for the Peoples Manners they would daily grow worse and worse How true this is let the world judge That then which now mainly imports is to distinguish the true Religion from so many false ones This is my Aim To effect this I did write a short Paper shewing the Catholick Church so to teach the infallible way to Salvation which is to be obtained onely in the true faith that we cannot have as things stand any other Assurance to ground our faith upon securely I did never deny that when by the Infallible Authority of the Church we are secured that the Scriptures be the word of God we cannot believe such things as are clearly contained in the Scripture for so I should deny that I could not believe that to be infallibly true which upon an Infallible ground I believed to be Gods own word But I did and still do maintain that no man can have Infallible ground to believe the Scriptures now but he who first believeth that which the Church teacheth to be infallibly true Whence it will follow that his faith must needs now at the first be grounded upon the Revelation of Gods truth made by God to us by his Church and not by his written word The Papers I did write to this Effect have been answered by some truly Learned Scholar so that I hope so worthy a Man will not reject such a Reply as may seem to be as clear a Demonstration as any wise Man can hope for in this Matter And such a Demonstration I hope by Gods grace to make whilst I endevour to make good the Title prefixed to this Paper which Title I now add to shew that my chief drift is to guide a Soul redeemed by Christs blood to that happy eternity to which we cannot attain unless in all doubtful Controversies of faith we follow the Catholick Church as an Infallible Judge in all those Controversies we being obliged under pain of damnation not to dis-believe this Judge And whilst I demonstrate this I do demonstrate my former Position That the Infallible Authority of the Catholick Church is the Ground of our faith And also going on with this Demonstration I will leave nothing of Concernment unanswered in the Reply made and thus I will conclude contradictorily to the said Reply which a little after the beginning denyeth The Authority of the Catholick Church to be the Ground of faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertained of the minde of God I answer not the Reply just in the Order that my Answer was returned for so I should be over-long I use this way of a little Treatise to prove my Title for thus all will be more clear and less tedious In the Conclusion I shew all the parts of the Reply to have been fully answered in this Discourse The Proof of the Title St. Anselme hath a very fit Similitude to express how much a Contentious Spirit in disputing doth blind the understanding from seeing the Manifest Truth He sayeth that a little before Sun-rising two men in the fields did fall into a hot debate concerning that place of the Heavens in which the Sun was that day to rise the one pointing out one part of the Heavens the other another They passed so far in their Contention that falling together by the Ears they both pulled out one anothers Eyes and so when the Sun by and by after did rise neither of them both could see a thing so clear as was the place of the Sun rising To our purpose Because Zeal in Religion is accounted laudable and also because prejudice caused by Education in such or such a Religion is a thing exceedingly swaying us to our own side we are commonly apt to grow into so hot a debate in disputations about Religion that I may freely say This Passion hindreth many thousands from seeing that clear Sun-shine of Truth which men of mean Capacity would clearly behold if setting all passion and prejudice aside they did with a Calm and humble Mind beg of God to give them this grace of seeking Truth with all sincerity for then he who should seek should find This is proved manifestly
will not hear the Church Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and Publican Here you see all Causes of greater Importance are to be brought to this Judge for if even private complaints are to be brought into her Tribunal and if for disobedience after her Judgement given of them a man be to be hold for a Publican or Heathen much more are enormiously hurtful crimes such as are the crimes of Heresie to be carried to her Tribunal and those who in so much more Importing matters disobey are also much more to be held for Publicans and Heathens And that no man may think that after this his condemnation he may stand well in his Interiour persisting still in the same judgement and doing so stand right in the sight of God it followeth Amen I say unto you Prelates of my Church VVhatsoever ye shall bind upon Earth shall also be bound in Heaven You see I have found a Judge so securely to be followed in his Judgement and so unsafely to be disobeyed that his Sentence given upon Earth is sure to be ratified in Heaven This also could not be true if this Judge were fallible in such prime causes as most concern the Church and all such causes are those which may bring in damnable Errors Conformably to this doctrine of the Church her being our Judge Saint Austin de Civit. l. 20.9 expounds to our purpose those words of the Apocalypse or Revelation cap. 20. ver 4. I saw Seats and they sate upon them and Judgement was given them It is not to be expounded of the last Judgement but of the Seats of Prelates and the Prelates themselves by which the Church is now governed are to be understood All this which I have said out of the New Testament you will the lesse wonder at if you Note that even in the Old Law it is said The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and they shall require the Law from his Mouth because he is the Angel of the Lord God of Hosts Mal 2. Note here a grosse corruption of the English Bible which readeth these words The Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth whereas the Originals speak clearly in the future Tense Here by the way I must tell you that though the Scripture were to be Judge yet your most corruptd English Scriptures cannot be allowed for Judge Whence it followeth that those who do understand onely English can judge of nothing by their Scripture And so they must trust their Ministers to the full as much even in this highest point as we do our Priests in any point But let us proceed You see first that I have found a way so direct that fools cannot erre by it for any man may ask the Priests of the Church what is the known Doctrine of the Church and then let him rest securely when he knoweth that Secondly you see I have found such a Judge as all true believers had for all their Controversies for more then two thousand years together before Moses did write the first Books of Scripture all which time you must needs make the Tradition of the Church the infallible Rule of Faith for here was no written Word of God upon which their Faith could be built and yet Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4. speaking of those who lived in those Ages before all Scripture saith They had the same Spirit of Faith And the reason is clear for the Word of God is the same whether it be revealed by the Pen or by the Tongue written or not written And what saith St. Irenaus l. 3. c. 4. if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures Must we not have followed that order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose Charges they left the Churches to be governed To this order of Tradition by the unwritten word many of those barbarous Nations do assent who have believed in Christ without any writing or Inke having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and keeping diligently the ancient Traditions So St. Irenaeus who you see holdeth manifestly unwritten Traditions of the Church to be a sufficient Ground of Faith It is most manifestly true which he saith that upon this ground the Faith of whole Nations have relyed This ground therefore is infallible all Nations Faith relying on this even two Thousand years and more before the first Scriptures were written and the Faith of many other Nations who since their writing have believed and do believe the true Faith For how many of them never did see the Scriptures at all or never did see them in a Language which they could understand Neither did the Apostles or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as they could all or the greater part understand They thought the Tradition of the Church a sufficient Rule of Faith for all which they could not do if this Rule were fallible We must therefore confesse it to be Infallible Thirdly I have not onely found a Judge so clearly pointing out the way that fools cannot erre by it but such a Judge as no exception can be taken against his sufficiency for no other Judge was in the Church for some Thousands of years amongst the most true Beleevers and afterwards amongst whole Nations Fourthly I have found a Judge to whom Christ hath given a certain Promise to teach no damnable error by which Doctrine the Gates of Hell should prevail against her Fiftly I have found a Judge whom All men are obliged I say obliged by Interiour Assent in point of Faith to obey under pain of being held here for Heathens or Publicans and looked upon as such by the Judgement of Heaven binding what the Church bindeth Sixtly I have found a living Judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time and who can hear Me and You and be heard by Me and You that neither I nor You can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we doubt we can propose our doubt and she will tell us clearly her meaning whereas the Bible can neither hear a Thousand new Controversies which arise daily nor be heard clearly to give any certain Sentence in them but onely say the same still which she said even before the Controversies began and about which Sentence of hers all the Controversie did arise neither doth the Bible give any such Judgement as will suffice to hold these and these men who teach these and these errors for Heathens and Publicans which the Church doth so clearly and so manifestly that they themselves cannot deny themselves to be condemned by the Church together with their Doctrine but all they can do is to raile against their Judge which the damned shall do against Christ their Judge I see no exception there can be made against this Judge Onely you will tell me that Infallibility is wholly necessary for the Judge of Faith which I
the Judges of Controversies or to be infallible Wherefore they cannot be either judges or infallible for if they be true Judges then they judge truly against themselves when they judge it to be as certain as Scripture that there is no Judge but Scripture And if they be truly infallible in defining them they truly and by infallible authority define themselves to be fallible whilest they define it to be Scripture that the true Church is fallable Wherefore infallibly they are fallible and consequently infallibly they are not the true Church which we have demonstrated to be infallible and all those Texts authorities and Reasons must needs prove all Churches false that be fallible whilest they prove the true Church necessarily to be infallible But all Churches besides the Roman by their own faith are according to infallible Scripture fallible None of them therefore is the true Church If then the Roman Church be not the true Church then Christ hath no true Church left on Earth nor hath not had these many Ages Hence you may gather why I never was sollicitous to prove all that was said of the Church by the Scriptures and Fathers to be said of the Roman Church for whilest I did shew them to be said of such a Church as might be of an Authority infallibile and sufficient to ground Faith It followed manifestly that all was said of the Roman no other being Infallible and so Christ should have no true Church if this be not a true one For I have demonstrated that no other can be Infallible This being a Demonstration until this Argument be answered I hold my self bound to say no more yet I must needs tell you in brief a small part of that which I can and will say if this point be again pressed I will shew how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this St. Cyprian Ep. 3. l. 1. saith that false Faith cannot have Access to the Roman Church St. Hierome in 1. ad Tim. calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome The Rector of the House of God which St. Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of truth And in his Epistle to the same Pope he saith To your Holiness that is to the Chair of Peter I am joyned in communion Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built He that gathers not with thee scatters So the Fathers in the Councel of Chalcedon at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. And many such other places I will alledge for which now I remit you to Stapleton and Bellarmine who both shew most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief Causes See this done in all Ages in Bell. 3. De Verbo Dei e. 6. I will shew also how all Churches of all Ages which were not confessed Heretical or Schismatical Churches have been ever joyned in communion to the Roman until St. Gregory the greats time and then ever since and how in his time England received the same Roman Faith which now all Roman Catholiques professe and all Protestants deny And I will shew that this faith then brought into England from Rome did not in any point of Faith controverted between the Roman Catholiques and the Protestants differ from that undoubted true Apostolical Faith which our old Brittains received from Rome in the second age of the Church in the dayes of Eleutherius and from hence the present Roman Churches communion in Doctrine with the Ancient Apostolical Church will appear I will shew that perpetual visibility agreeth onely to the Roman Church and consequently that in her onely that Prophesie concerning Christ was fulfilled That he should reigne in the House of Jacob for ever and of his reign there shall be no end We can shew how he hath reigned here by known and manifest Pastors of the Church who have in all ages appeared in Councils to govern his Church I pray set us but know the name of one of your Pastors Doctors or Preachers in those last thousand ages which preceded Luther All are bound to be of the true Church but to be of an invisible Church having onely Invisible Pastors administring Sacraments in an invisible manner no man can be bound to be of I will shew that all conversions of Nations from Idolatry so often promised to be made by the true Church were all and every one of them made by such as did communicate with the Roman Church and no one Nation ever converted from Paganisme by those who professed Protestant Religion or held these points in which Protestants differ from us I will add also that all who have been eminent for sanctity of Life or glory of Miracles have all been joyned in communion to the Roman Church and you cannot name any one famous in either of these respects whom you can prove to have been a Protestant a most evident sign of the Truth of the Roman Church Compare any other Church to it in all these points here mentioned and you shall see all incomparably more verified in the Roman Church then in any other differing from her or agreeing with you yea verified in none but her I have then I hope performed my Promise to shew a clear way how in the midst of so many Religions to find the true One by the Infallible Authority of the Catholick Church which I have shewed to be the Judge in all Controversies of Faith and of Authority sufficient to ground true Faith upon and that when all this is done This is that holy and direct way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it and wise men must erre if they walk not by it The Conclusion Shewing the Reply to my Papers to have been fully answered in the former Discourse This Reply consisteth of Eight Answers with a word or two at the end and at the beginning of these Answers To all these in Order FIrst at the beginning you say there is little reason for you to rejoyn because I wave the Application of my discourse as to the Roman Church I answer That my Position was that the Church is the Ground of Faith Of the Roman Church it was to no end to speak until I had been first granted that some Church or other was the Ground of Faith A man must first prove to a Jew that the Messias is come and then he must prove that Christ was this Messias Again all my Proofs proved an infallible Church to be the ground of Faith of which no fallible Church could be a sure Ground as is manifest But all Churches but the Roman Church do profess according to Scripture themselves to be fallible whence it followeth that all Churches but the Roman must needs be fallible For if they or any of them be infallible then they teach the infallible Truth when they teach themselves to be fallible No Church therefore can be Infallible but she who teacheth her self to be Infallible Consequently when I proved the
you charge me in differing from my selfe because before I taught the ground of Believing to be the Authority of the Church and now I say it is the Authority of God Revealing My Reply is exceeding easie The Ground of our Faith is God Revealing and God Revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first Belief when he tells us by his Church such and such Books are Infallibly his Word God Revealing is alwaies the formal object of Faith but sometimes God Revealeth his minde by Scriptures and sometimes by the Church as he did for two Thousand yeares and more before the Scriptures were written The Prophets before they did write did say This saith the Lord to wit this he said by their Mouths So say I This and this saith our Lord by the Mouth of his Church as I have shewed Numb 22. Saint Athanasius to speak and I have shewed Numb 28. The General Councel of Chalcedon to have said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Pope of Rome And thus Gods Revelation cometh to us by the Church She and onely She teacheth us these and these Scriptures to be Gods Word We must first believe her before we can come to have Infallible Ground to believe Scriptures as I have fully shewed After we have believed Scripture we cannot by Scripture onely know the undoubted sense of many necessary places in Scripture as hath been shewed Again all things necessary to be believed be not set down in Scripture as hath also been shewed fully The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her Authority to be our ordinary cause of Faith At the end of these your Answers you would fain seem to have spoken properly in accusing us of Excesse of Faith But your distinction doth no way salve the Impropriety of the Speech for there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects but granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that Sense it is not truly said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing what God saith for believing upon an Infallible Authority all that we believe we cannot believe more then we should if we believe no more things then be grounded upon that Infallible Authority as we do not And consequently we do no more then believe such things as have for their Warrant This faith the Lord. Having now answered your Paper from the beginning to the end I am most willing to take your own close out of Saint Austin Against Reason no sober Man will go against Scriptures no Christian against the Church no Peace-maker adding his other words Tr. 32. in Joan. Let us believe my Brethren so much as a Man loveth the Church just so much he hath of the Holy Ghost SIR I Cannot answer it to God nor to his Church with us if I let you seem to your self or to others of your perswasion that you have the Victory untill you have overcome your Error therefore you will excuse me if I still follow you To your Preface then If the Roman Catholiques have often foretold that by permitting freely to all sorts of people the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother-tongue multitudes of new Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberlesse number and as for the peoples Manners they would grow worse and worse as you say in the beginning then are your Roman Catholiques in this false Prophets because they seem by you to make that the cause of Heresies and bad Manners This is plainly fallacia non causa or the fallacy of accident And secondly it is contrary to that of our Saviour Christ Saint Mark the 12.24 Do you not therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God By our Saviour the knowledge of the Scriptures is not the cause of erring but the not knowing of the Scriptures is the cause of erring You do therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto Salvation as Saint Paul to Timothy 2 Tim. 3.15 And thirdly You confesse in this Paper that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may Ground our Faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered And fourthly How cometh it to passe then that some of those in whom Infallibility as you think is vested have been Hereticks and lewd the former of which indeed you do much deny but is exemplified in Liberius's subscribing against Athanasius as you may see fully proved by our Reinolds against your Hart. And surely was that also an action of bad Manners Therefore if your Church were the true Church yet doth it not you see teach the way of Salvation infallibly and therefore can we not by it infallibly discerne the true Religion from the false Indeed the Catholick Church hath taught the infallible way of Salvation but that was the Scripture as I proved by many Testimonies and this was a teaching the infallible way by consequence because it did teach the Scripture which is the infallible way yet hath it not in particular points taught the infallible way infallibly Neither are we by the Church infallibly resolved that the Scripture is the Word of God although the authority of the true Church be a motive herein yet is it not that wherein ultimately we ground our Faith of the Scriptures as I have shewed Whereas then you say that we cannot have as things stand any other assurance to ground our Faith upon securely namely then the Church you do still but fortiter supponere for we cannot ground our assurance securely upon the Church And secondly Whereas you say that as things stand we have no other assurance c. you do not well consider what you say or I do not understand what you mean for hereby you do intimate that the Church is not the ground of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that which is indeed the ground of our Faith must be so absolutely and universally as farre as is necessary the Church security is but the best of the kinde amongst those which are humane but we must have a Divine indefectible ground for our Divine Faith in which there cannot be falsity Neither thirdly Is the Church the first ground because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God because if we did by it believe the Scripture then we are not first to believe it by the Scripture And if whatsoever credence we do give to it we do give by authority of the Scripture then are we first to believe the Scripture and then that is the first ground Fourthly In that you say you did never deny that when we are by the Infallible authority of the Church assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture c. you say that which concludes against the practice of
use my Liberty for your good If you had a mind to leave nothing in my reply of moment unanswered you would have followed me as a disputant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you would have opposed distinction to some incident arguments for professedly the answerer is not to dispute You would have given me answer to answer interpretation to testimonies with shewing either their impertinency or invaliditie And that excuse of yours lest you should be too long is surely too short to cover you That is not long whereof nothing can be abated as he said and that is my excuse And surely your Treatise is too long not only by your many repetitions which swell your paper but would have been too long had it been lesse it is too long by it self Who ever answered a rejoynder with a Treatise Shall I say that by your form of a Treatise it may seem that you have more mind to treat then to fight I am loath to be so bold neither doth it become my spirit to tell you that you do not stand your ground but you do not neither conclude contradictorily if your Treatise did prove that the authoritie of your Church is the ground of Faith in the Divinitie of the Scripture and in case of Controversie For your first paper spoke universally my Answer denied it and now you would prove it if you could particularly If you would conclude contradictorily to me you should have concluded in the same quantitie affirmatively to my negative This you here seem not to intend yet in other parts of your Treatise you would contend it And in the end you would arm your Treatise against me as if there were no difference betwixt Positive and Oppositive Divinity And this you doe by references but you should not have put the suit to reference without my consent So much for the Preface After the Preface you come to the Proof of the Title You mean the Title of this Paper which surely needs not to be proved because it is not delivered by way of Affirmation but of Disquisition ANd as for the Similitude you say of St. Anselme we like it very well For if the Tables be turned it doth very aptly belong to you who if you have not with a Roman contention for Masterie pulled out the Eyes of Men yet have put out the Light not allowing them the use of the Scripture you shut up the people in Darknesse and will not let them see the Sun of Righteousnesse in his own Orb of Scripture for fear it may be he should not seem now to rise but to go down in Rome and instead hereof you leave Men to walk by the Light of the Pope whom one compared to the Sun as the Emperour to the Moon Christ saith Search the Scriptures you say not yea you take away the use of all humble seeking of God for the knowledge of Truth because you have said that we must all submit our assents to the determinations of the Church So you see how your Opinion is practically impious and is disagreeable to your own directions For you say if they should seek of God they should find Onely you say we should set all passions prejudice aside with a calm humble mind beg of God to give us this grace of seeking truth Surely this Qualification of our addresse to God for the finding of Truth is very good and I would it were as well practised as delivered but let the world judge who is like to be most wanting in this Devotion and to exceed in passion and prejudice He who affirms all to be delivered infallibly by the Church or he that searcheth in Scripture particular Truths Infallibility pretended easily makes any man passionate against difference unlesse indeed he could make it good And he that is infallible is in right capacitie sure to have a necessary prejudice against different Opinions Neither since the times of the Apostles hath humilitie been usually seen to â—â—â—p companie with infallibilitie not that he who is most humble is not most likely not to erre but that he who saith he cannot erre is most likely not to be humble but as for prejudice by Education which you speak of also may I not as well retort it upon you I think in some respects it is not so applicable to me Indeed we do not inherit Religion as Lands but if when we come to abilitie of discerning which your Religion in its Principles will never let you come to we see good cause for our Religion Surely we have no reason to leave it because it was our Fathers although we doe not embrace it because it was our Fathers The relation it hath to our Ancestours hath no more moment in it then the Church may have upon you namely to be a considerable motive not to be your ultimate resolution thus for the first number of your proof 〈◊〉 that it is 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 even with you for the similitude by a saying of Tertullian in his Apologet at the end of the 9. chapter Caetiâ—â—s dâ— species facile concurrunt ut qua non vident qua sunt videre viatantur quae non â—â—nt So while you do not see what exceptions there are against you you see more see what are not exceptions against us and our way of Faith But therefore in your second Number you will prove your way by Scripture We now come to it And your Text is Esay the 35. from the fourth Verse to the ninth by parcels Say to the faint-hearted Take courage and fear not behold God himselfe will come and save you then shall the eyes of the Blind be lightned and the eares of the Deaf be opened and there shall be a path and a way and it shall be called an Holy way and this shall be unto you a direct way so that fools cannot erre by it Thus you order the Testimony To this we say 1. Whether it be intended by the Holy Ghost to respect the Primitive Church Christian mystically through the Jewish we cannot be certain but sure we may be that in the Letter it doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from captivity And therefore it may be you â—earing that this should be taken notice of do wisely leave out those passages which may seem to incline the Text to that sense and you take only that which you think is for your turn So you know who would have deceived Christ by omitting that part of Scripture which was against him although you will not allow to the people the Liberty of Scripture yet let us have all for our life in the dispute And it there be a mystical sense here yet you know the rule of Divines which is also not denyed by yours that mystical Divinity is not argumentative unlesse namely the mystical sense be expressed in Scripture which you are here to demonstrate 2. If it be understood of the Primitive Church through the Jewish as Saint Hierome indeed doth comment upon it
the Pope to be head of the Universal Church and therefore are they not compared ad idem Thirdly Is it determined in Scripture whether the Pope be Head of the Church or not You say it is for if you say it is not you are all lost Well if it be determined by Scripture then consequently it is determined in Scripture that the King is not and so this your Controversie is one of those which is decided and concluded negatively in or by Scripture So this exception against us doth not thrive Another point of this kind you make in your eleventh Number about the Canon of Scripture your Argument seems to be thus that we should know the Canon is necessary we do not know it by Scripture therefore by the Church Is it not thus you cannot make your matter shorter without any detriment to you And therefore we answer first as at first which you give us the occasion to put you in mind of that if the Church were Infallible Judge of all Canonical books yet would it not follow from hence that it should be Infallible Judge in all points of Faith and Manners which you would fain have as very â—seful for you unlesse caâ—â—ally for we might suppose more assistance to the Church in this particular then in other cases since also when that is made sure that there are the books of Scripture we should look for no other directions for Life and Salvation but this Therefore if you argue that because it is Judge Infallible of Canonical books it is Judge of all matters you do not rightly proceed from a particular You are in that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore you do not conclude in your first Universality Secondly We are not to be assured by Divine Faith that there are Canonical books from the authority of the Church and therefore is not the Church the Infallible Judge herein We must beleeve them to be Canonical by their own Authority otherwise we shall never believe them to be so so that you see we deny the Assumption and we say we may know the Canonical books by Scripture we have no other Divine Authority to know them by They bear witnesse of themselves they carry their own light which we may see them by as we see the Sun by its own light For let me put you to this Dilemma either the Scripture is to be believed for it self or the Church is to be believed for it self If the Scripture be to be believed for it self then have we our cause if the Church be to be believed for it self then must we know this by a Revelation beside Scripture which your Bellarmine disputes against in the beginning of his Controversies and whether that Revelation be not Anabaptistical and more uncertain then the word of God judge you And I pray is it not more fiâ— that the Scripture should be believed in its own cause then the Church but if you say that the Authority of the Church is evidenced by Scripture concerning it then that is to be believed for itself as towards the Church and why not then other parts of it Thirdly If the Church be the Judge Infallible of Canonical books how came Saint Hierome to be repugnant to the Church in the debate about Books Apocryphal as you know and may see by your Bellarmin in his second Book De verbo Dei cap. 9. amongst which Apocryphal books the Maccabees are numbred to be by him accounted such and therefore Saint Jerome did not in his Latin Edition translate them and then let S. Jerom's authority justifie Lâ—ther upon your principles for you account the Maccabees to be as well Canonical as you and we do the Apocalyps That the Scripture is silent of its own Canon and that we cannot prove a book to be infallibly Canonical by it self without begging the question hath litle of iudiciousness in it for how do we see light how do we prove first and indemonstrable principles how do we prove that which we apprehend by natural light after this manner is the understanding irradiated to see the authority of Scripture in it and by it well and how do we prove the Church to be infallible by it without begging the question therefore you must come about to Scripture And again if you prove the Church to be infallible Judge herein because the Scripture is not you beg the question who are to dispute not I who am to answer Your twelfth number goes upon a false supposition at least in part of it namely that we are bound to believe that the Gospel of Saint Matthew was written by him as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark We deny it We are bound indeed to believe that the Gospel of St. Matthew and St. Mark as we distinguish them are the word of God but we are not bound to believe that they were written by them It is no part or duty of my faith to believe the Penman of any part of Scripture save onely so far as it is declared in the body of Scripture for it is not Scripture because Saint Matthew wrote it but Saint Matthew wrote it as being inspired that it was the word of God in the matter of it If then your discourse goes upon the matter of it it was answered before if upon the title it is not allowed to be de fide or any point of faith that such was writer of any piece of Scripture And whereas you urge that some have denied this Gospel and some or other have denied other books to be Canonical how then shall we end this Controversie or others about the Canon by Scripture I answer And do not Hereticks deny your Church to be infallible will you therefore quit your opinion So then either this argument is not good against us or it is also good against you Secondly If Hereticks reject some books we may be disposed by the authority of the Catholick Church to our faith of them by their own authority And this seems to be as much as Saint Austin would have us to attribute to the Church in this particular as we have his advice in his second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 8. where he says in Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam-plurimum sequatur authoritatem In Canonical Scriptures let him very much follow the authority of the Catholick Churches amonst which surely these are they which merited if you will construe it so to have Apostolick seats and to receive Apostolick Epistles Observe that he saith let him follow the authoritie very much which doth not conclude that we should wholly rely upon it and of the Catholick Churches in the plural not one only Then there are more Catholick Churches in his judgement and such are they which merited to have Apostolick Seas and Epistles then your Church onely is not to be called the Apostolique Sea And whereas afterward in this Church he doth reckon Apocryphall Books yet is
it to be noted that herein he followed the authoritie of the Churches Notwithstanding which Saint Jerome as before did not receive them which makes a sufficient reason to hold that the authority of the Churches is not a sufficient ground of faith in the belief of Canonical Books or else St. Jerome who in this may be compared with St. Austin for his judgement is in the same condemnation with us Afterwards you plead that since the Gospel of S. Matthew was written in Hebrew whereof there is not extant any one Copy in the world and it is not certain who or how faithfully he did translate it we cannot be certain by the Scripture that this is the word of God therefore by the Church This I think is the sum of your plea. We answer First Again we do not disclaim the use of the Catholique Churches in the credence of the Word of God but this doth not certifie us Secondly You Catholiques as you would be called speak largely that not one of the Ancients conceived it to be written in Greek surely all the Ancients did not write surely all that did write are not now had But take it of all that did write and are now extant and put it to be so that all were of Saint Jeromes Opinion in his Preface upon Saint Matthew yet all that you say is not certainly true that there is not a Copy of the Hebrew Gospel extant in all the world For not to speak of the Hebrew Gospels set out by Munster and Mercer which Ludovicus de Dieu takes notice of in the Preface to his Notes upon the Gospels if you will give any heed to your Isidor Clarius he will tell you I suppose otherwise when he saith in a little Preface which is a Testimonie out of Saint Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastick writers that St. Jerome there affirms ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodiè in Casariensi Bibliotheca which Pamphilus the Martyr studiosissimè confecit and that he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans who in Beroea City of Syria do use this volume to describe it So he Now it may be that remains there and therefore you cannot be certain of what you say And this is more then an ordinary Authority of the Church in an interpretation Again how come your Latin interpretation of this Gospel to be authentique if it was not taken out of an authentick copie for the Church can doe no more then declare that which is authentique then must it be authentique otherwise they make Scripture Again let me give you one intimation that possibly so might yet at first be written in Greek my reason is this in the first of Saint Matthew 23. verse it is said of Christ they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is God with us If it were written in Ebrew what need of any interpretation in the same Language since the Letters of the Word put together without any variation do make that signification Again if the Church hath made the Greek Translation authentique why is your Latin made authentique Is there two authentiques If it be not authentique by the Church what would you infer Again the harmony of it with other Gospels hath more in it to perswade Faith then the credit of the Church Again if it be an Interpretation yet unlesse you do evince it that we do build our Faith upon the Interpretation you do nothing Now then as your people do fix their Faith upon that which is interpreted not up-upon the interpretation so may we build our belief upon this Gospel to be the Word of God by the illumination of the Spirit of God and yet not upon the Translation The Translation doth but conveigh unto our knowledge the words but it is the Spirit of God that doth work in us belief thereof that it is the VVord of God The Translation attends the Notification of the object what that is which is to be believed but it is the Divine perswasion which attends the act and is the cause why it is believed the Interpretation is but the Instrument of Faith the ground of it is the perswasion of God that it is the Truth and VVord of God and therefore your argumentation goes upon a wrong supposition as if we resolved our Faith in the Translation as such And what you except afterwards against the certainty of our Faith upon the account of the Greek Translation doth also return easily upon you for the same possibility of error is urged against your Latin either by ignorance or negligence or on purpose for the upholding of your new opinions And let me ask you why you account your Latin to be Authentique you will say because the Church of Rome was infallibly assisted in it VVas it then Infallibly assisted when it renders the Ebrew in Genesis ipsa for ipsum that it might be for the honour of the Virgin VVell but give it that the Latin was infallibly made by the Church why not the Greek also infallibly made by the Church and more confirmed by the Church then your Latin one you get nothing then by this exception And this may satisfie you how a Manichaan might believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew which you put to the question An opinion thereof he may have by the judgement of the Church some knowledge of it to be the Word of God he may gather by the agreement with the other Gospels but the Faith of it to be such is to be wrought by the Spirit of God whereby those who heard the Apostles were caused to believe that which they preached to be the Word of God without perswasion of the Church which was not then in a body when some first believed As for the Fathers holding Books to be Canonical by the Church we have spoken to already in this paper and we shall meet with it again You speak indeed of them as in general upon designe ad faciendum populum but you do not name the places onely Saint Athanasius you are pleased to quote VVe answer if you mean that he received the Gospels and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas upon the Authority of the Church as the cause of his Faith of them you do not prove it by what he saies If you mean that he was induced to think well of them by the reception of the Church and to refuse the other by their refusal this doth not come home to the question And suppose the Church its refusal of the Gospel of Saint Thomas was sufficient for him to refuse it too yet doth it not follow that because the Church did receive the other Gospels he received them no otherwise then because they did for this makes the reception of the ChurCh to be but as a necessary condition not the formal cause of his Faith As for Tertullians and Saint Jeroms and St. Austins authorities in this case we shall finde an answer when you quote the places The Testimony of Eusebius which you produce
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
arising from time to time and who can hear Me and You and be heard by Me and You that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we doubt we can propose our doubt and she will tell us clearly her meaning whereas the Bible c. cannot do so This hath in it somewhat new your discourse in brief may be under this forme That which can hear you and me and be heard by you and me and resolve doubts of its meaning is the Judge the Church can do thus the Scripture not therefore the Church is the Judge and not the Scripture We easily answer If you understand the proposition of a formall Judge so we grant it and do not say the Scripture is the Judge but if you mean it so that nothing can be in any Kind a Judge but that which doth so we deny it and your assumption too for the Law is in its kind the Judge and so may the Scripture be as I have shewed before in this paper And unless the Ecclesiastick Judges whereof we do not reject a lawfull and good use doe rightly declare Scripture in the application of it to particular Causes wherein the authority of the Church as some of your men will sometimes say doth consist I cannot possibly hold my self bound in Conscience to yield my judgement therunto So then secondly unlesse you put into the premisses that that which heareth you and me and is heard by you and me is the infallible Judge and then that the Church doth so your discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for so we grant all as to the Church for this may stand with our cause but if you do put in infallibility we deny both the one and the other Preposition Thirdly by this Argument you exclude Tradition from being the Judge for doth that hear you and me Is that heard by you and me but you say the Church doth determine hereby then may it determine by Scripture more securely and more universally Fourthly is not the Heretique Saint Paul speaks of in his third chapter to Titus the 10.11 verses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himself or of himself how that not by principles of natural Knowledge for Theologie is supernatural and therefore needed a Revelation of it from God you know not by a Revelation immediate Extra Scripturam for then how should he be condemned of himself Not by any definition of the Church which was not then sufficiently formed thereunto no nor yet by Titus because then as before he had not been condemned by himself then he was condemned by himself because he had in him the Principles of the Word of God which he gainsaid by his contrary Error So that it remains he was condemned by the Law of God And therefore that can judge you and me not externally and by voice but internally by vertue of Conscience which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemning of Errors in us so that this Scripture it is or the Word of God which passeth Sentence in the interiour judgement as you speak and this absolves some who in the outward Courts are condemned and condemneth some who in the outward Court are not condemned And therefore it is not only lawful but necessary for us sometimes to dissent in our judgement because they may erre in their dijudication And as much your own reason suggests in your 21. Number wherein you acknowledge it to be necessary that there should be infallibilitie in the Judge of faith And then you would state or estate this infallibility of the Church of Christ thus that a Pope defining with a Lawful Generall Councill cannot erre For it is no necessary article of faith to believe that the Pope or Head of the Church cannot Erre when he defineth without a Generall Councill So you Alas Sir what Cautions do you stand in need of in this grand and capital and Comprehensive Controversie which affords me Liberty to think that that is not the ground of Catholique Faith which is intricated with so many windings and guarded with such accurateness of Cautions that render it very suspicious and therefore not to be plain and a direct way so that fools cannot erre for who can be certain by a Divine Faith of the Lawfullness and regularitie of your Pope in his Creation and when there was Pope against Pope who of the people could distinguish the right And this is now possible because then in facto And who then could decide the question for the infallible judge you say is your Pope with a Council Which of them could then determine it and in his own cause Or could your Council determine it without a Pope but I hope your infallible determination could not be without the Head of the Church And who according to your Doctrine should call the Council for you say that power is vested in the Pope Well suppose no doubt of the legalitie of the Pope how shall we by a Divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulness and Generality of a Councill for you know Ecclesiastical History is full of instances of Councils which were called by the Emperours and not by Popes to whom you say it doth of due belong to call Councils else they are not lawful And how shall we know whether every one of the Council hath a free Election to it and a free decisive vote in it How much of faction may be looked for in a Councill when there is so much in the Election of a Pope such exclusions such bandyings What Council was ever called by a Pope wherein Religion was not made to serve his interest Is not he who hath power of preferring like to domineer in such Consultations And how shall ignorant souls be divinely perswaded that the Council i◠General If it be easie to discern it then had your Tren◠Council great infelicity to be so contradicted by the French Catholiques And how many Bishops in the Trent Council furnished with a Title to overpower them with Votes on the Popes behalf So that he answered well who said about the question which is superiour a Pope or a Council a Pope was like to have the more voyces because he could confer Bishopricks a Council not What clue can a collier have infallibly to guide him through all those Labyrinths Secondly If the infallible Judge of Faith be the Pope with a lawful General Council how was the Church provided for when for so many years there was neither Pope in your sense nor any Council Thirdly If the Pope and the Council do differ about a Question what shall be done in that case yet if the Question be which is superiour to the other the Pope or the Council what shall be joyntly agreed and is not this a main question between the Sorbonists and others Fourthly If the Pope with a lawful General Council be the infallible Judge then how will this be reconciled
Ut sic quatenus errer it is false All simple errour is not damnative to the person And therefore Christ may be with some who live in some errour indeed otherwise with whom is he For who is there that lives not in some errour though he knows it not If you mean then damnable errour distinctively I grant you all and yet you have nothing thereby for your cause For this doth not prove infallibility to your Church Security from damnable errour distinctively taken doth not infer absolute infallibility The former is promised as also in that of Saint John 14.16 which you would reinforce here but absolute infallibility is not intended And this you must have or else you are utterly lost For if the Church be not infallible in all that is proposed by it how shall I be assured of any particular thing which it proposeth If I be not assured of this particular how am I bound to believe it If I be not bound to beleeve it upon its proposal how is it the ground of Faith Divine If it be not the ground of Faith Divine then you are gone And besides those promises in Saint Matthew and Saint John you may know were made as to the Apostles equally and therefore to their successours equally and to the Church universal equally by consequent and therefore cannot you appropriate it to your Bishop and to your Church Saint Austins authority in a passage of his wherein you say he speaks admirably in this De utilitate credendi cap 6. you had better have omitted It strengthens your cause nothing if you quote it as you should First it is misquoted for the chapter for it is not in the 6. chapter but in the 16. Secondly you may see in the beginning of the chapter that the scope of it is to shew how authority may first move to Faith And Thirdly this scope may discover your corrupting of his Text for it is not as you give it a certain step but contrary an uncertain step velut gradu incerto innitentes as in the Froben Edition â—N M. D. lxix Whereby you may perceive how little reason we have to credit your infallibility And then Fourthly part of his authority in that chapter is by miracles of Christ which he did himself on earth The summe of your fourth Number is this to perswade not onely that the Churches authority is infallible if it judge conformably to Scripture for so even the Devil himself is infallible so long as he teacheth conformably to Scriptures but that the Church shall at no time teach any thing that in any damnable errour shall be against Scripture So that when we know this is her Doctrine we are sure that this is conformable to the Scriptures rightly understood And this you would prove by two Testimonies of Scripture We answer distinctly and First to that you say about the Devil First we are not commanded but forbidden to consult with the Devil but we are injoyned to consult with the Church of God Secondly we have cause alwayes to suspect the Devil because either he doth not give us all the Scripture unto a particular or doth pervert it or doth speak the truth with an intention of deceiving the more but we have more charity towards the Church we have none towards the Devill Thirdly Yet though we do not believe the Devil in point of truth upon his authority neverthelesse can we not believe the Church in whatsoever it sayes to be true upon its authority neither doth it follow that the Devil should hereupon be the pillar and ground of Truth when he said that which is conformable to Scripture as well as the Church because the Church doth hold and uphold Truth so doth not the Devil but when he useth it he doth it to destroy it and again we are moved to think that which is proposed by the Church to be true so are we not moved by the Devil to conceive it to be true upon his saying so And therefore if I do believe that which the Devil saith conformable to Scripture to be true and do not beleeve that every thing which is said by the Church to be conformable to Scripture I do not make the same account of what is said by one and by the other For that which is true I doe beleeve because it is seâ— though the Devil saith it I do beleeve it in respect to the matter without any respect to the Author and that which is not true according to Scripture I cannot beleeve though the Church saith it yet am I moved by the authority of the Church to consider the point more because it is proposed by them and what is by them proposed according to Scripture I am moved to beleeve of with respect of the Authour of the proposal but cannot be resolved in my Faith of but by the authority of Scripture And therefore I cannot beleeve that whatsoever is said by the Church is agreable to Scripture because the Church faith it for this proposition for ought as yet proved is not agreable to Scripture rightly understood And if you say that your Church must judge the sense let it first judge whether it doth not beg the principle Neither have your Texts alledged any thing for you Not that of Daniel the 2. chapter the 44. verse It respects indeed the Kingdome of Christ in general and therefore is not proper to any Church of his signaâ—ter for any thing can be shewed by the Text. Secondly The Kingdome of Christ principally respects the Church invisible which as such is not our guide Thirdly it may certainly come to its everlasting reign in Heaven notwithstanding some errour on earth by the Church visible Fourthly whereas you say it shall destroy all Idolatrous kingdomes you doe very well add in your Parenthesis Idolatrous Kingdomes to save your selves from suspition But it all Idolatrous Kingdomes then have you reason to make your infallibilitie more strongly infallible otherwise you will be included in this distraction So also that of Esay 59.21 profits you nothing some of the former answers may serve it principally is intended for the Church invisible which by the Church visible may sufficiently be directed through the means of grace to salvation infallibly without infallibility of the Church As the Word of God was certain before it was written and the Church then was by it directed because it was then in substance of it though not written as we have said before but you compell us to repeat so by the Word written infallibly though not infallibly expounded and applied by the Pastours of the Church shall the Church be brought to Life For if every evil action doth not destroy the state of salvation as you will confesse then surely every simple errour cannot because it is not voluntary And this is fully able to answer your Appendix to this Number at the end of your paper Those Testimonies if they be rightly cited yet in those terms affirm no more then
is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You go on in your Paraphrastical discourse But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel and so this answer cannot serve me notwithstanding I must tell you that I am such an one that I would not believe the Gospel without the authority of the Catholick Church did move me So you Out of which words of your own you may learn how to understand the sense and tense of the Father in the place But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel then he had believed the Gospel before and was not to believe it now and therefore his words must be referred in the African idiotism unto the time more then imperfect otherwise what he had believed he was to believe now which cannot stand with your Infallibility And yet you say afterwards mark if his ground be not so as I told you because saith he I have believed the Gospel it self upon the preaching of the Catholiques therefore if his Adversary should say do not believe the Catholicks he doth not go consequently to force him by the Gospel to any Faith to Manichaeus And hereupon you break out in these words Can he more clearly ground upon the Infallible Authority of their Teaching then upon this to believe the Gospel it self Answ Again these words do not include a Divine Faith of the Infallibility of the Church which you must have or else your cause is starved Because those words I would not believe the Gospel unlesse the authority of the Catholick Church did move me which must be the principal ground do not include his Faith of the Infallibility of the Church He might be moved by the authority of the Church though not resolved in his Faith by the Infallibility pretended according to this proportion must all his discourse be understood which proceeds from his belief of the Gospel by them to his being perswaded by them to Manichaeism if any thing should be found in the Gospel towards it or else proceeds to his not believing of Manichaeus upon his belief of the Catholicks who bad him believe the Gospel and not Manichaus These must be the hinges upon which the whole disputation must turn and therefore if those words be not understood of an ultimate determination of his Faith by the authority of the Church but of an instrumental moving nothing will be concluded sufficient and sufficiently for you But this answer you give not me any return to Ponder it very well for its importance in this debate For if the whole chapter was soberly spoken and if that he did not speak of himself as when he was a Manichaeu yet if he here intends to signifie no more then onely the authority of the Church was an impulsive to the belief of the Gospel you will evince no more then what you need not contend for because we do not contend against it as being not the state of the question Therefore it remains for you to prove your supposition or your proofs of an Infallible authority of the Church which indeed you would put in in your conclusions but is wanting in the premises And if it did belong to me to dispute it were not difficult to shew the contrary And since they may come in upon account of the reason of my denial they shall be there two moments from the chapter First Because he saith he did believe the Gospel per illos not propter Now what we do properly believe any one in we must believe for him not by him for him as a cause not by him as an instrument and therefore we believe what God sayes to be true not by him but for him And if the Apostles as he sayes were not 〈◊〉 of their Faith 2 Cor. 1â— 14 then were not those Catholicks he speaks of such as he ought for themselves to believe Secondly Because in several places of the chapter he doth signifie that if any reason could be given or any thing whereby it might be manifestly known that his Adversary were in the right he would leave his Catholicks Now this is not spoken consistently to the nature of Faith upon Infallible authority for what we do believe in way of Faith we do so believe as there cannot be a falsity in it as Aquinas doth confesse and I suppose you too for you would conclude no falsity or error can be in any thing which the Church doth define because it is infallible and therefore all the Reason and all the Science in the world are not able to shake Faith whereunto the contrary is intimated in the Father Nay if there be no arguing to the principles of Faith from other principles but from the principles of Scripture there is arguing to Divine conclusions then assuredly Faith in principles of Theology as this is one the verity of the Gospel is not obnoxious to any decay by any reasons And it seems his Faith then in the Gospel was not Divine upon the consideration of their authority since Reason may be valid against Humane authority but not Divine so that had he meant he built his Faith of the Gospel upon the authority infallible of the Church there had been no place for Reason to have any power of assent on the behalf of the Manichees Again if you hold to the Gospel my hold shall still be to the authority of the Church upon whose authority I believed the Gospel I saith he will hold my self to those by whose teaching I have believed the Gospel and there commanding me I will not believe thee So you think that this is also available for you surely nothing lesse for besides that you omit much of his connexion that makes for my former argument and also that â—â—â—kes against your rash and blind believing besides that you may understand that here he doth not compare the authority of the Church with the autopisty of Scripture which is the 〈◊〉 of the controversie but he doth compare the authority of the Catholicks as towards the belief of the Gospel with the authority of the Manichees as to believe their false Gospel of Manichaeus Indeed the authority of the Church is more urged and is more usefull to prevail aboâ—â—e or against the authority of private opposites but wâ—â— that it hath the moment of credibility above or equally to the authority of Scripture it self is that which is an question and is not here determined for you But you go on And Saint Austin goeth on so far upon this ground as a ground Infallible What of Faith it is again denyed not onely simply but it is denyed to be held so by him in this discourse If you may have your suppositions we must needs soon have done Well go on That he saith if perhaps you Manichaâ—us can find me any clear place in the Gospel to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus that then indeed they shall weaken the authority of the Catholicks So he â—aith And what can you make of this
for your use Take it by it selfe and it will come to this that a clear place in the Gospel would perswade him to lessen his opinion of the authority of the Catholicks then he would hold clear Scripture above or against the authority of the Church then their authority is not in his judgement Infallible or else Infallible authority of the Church may be opposite to Infallible authority of the Scripture and one in his opinion of them the Scripture is more Infallible then the other the Church which is incongruous for in Infallibility there is no degree no more then in Truth And if you say that the Scripture yet may be more Infallible to him this spoyls all your cause for you say you go to Faith by the Church because that way is more plain c manifestâ— Therefore you hasten me from this passage to shew me what will follow But what do you think will follow I pray note it well their authority being weakned and shewed once fallible now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel And why so because upon the authority of these Catholicks I had believed the Gospel So you But do you see how you interpose your glosse in your Parenthesis thus their authority being once weakned and shewed once fallible Do you imagine that we can neglect or overlook this your glossall inference or opposition and shewed once fallible as if there were no authority but that which is Infallible and there were no weakning of authority but to make it fallible Authority may stand with Fallibility for we grant Authority to the Church distinguishing it from Infallibility And if you had done so you had saved many a wound which your Church hath got by that unfortunate word Infallibility as one of your own men happily confessed Neither therefore doth it follow that the authority of the Catholicks being weakned and shewed once fallible he could not at all believe the Gospel because by the authority of the Catholicks he had believed the Gospel but he could not then believe the Gospel by that inductive and motive of the authority of the Church for the first Christians believed the Apostles severally without the authority of the Church Yea if upon that consideration he could not have believed the Gospel their authority by whom he did believe it being weakned yet doth it not from hence flow necessarily that when he did believe the Gospel he did believe it upon an Infallible authority because although he could not believe the Gospel without it yet might he account it as towards belief but a condition not a cause of his Faith And this you must have or else you do not contradict Whatsoever is necessary to an effect is not the cause of it although whatsoever is a cause thereof is necessary to it Therefore that is not so which again you say that the ground of his beleef in the Gospel was their infallible authoritie as not only these but also the next words shew manifestly When will you by your proof put the infallible proposal of the Church out of question when shall we have any more then supposals of it Let us see your next words Wherefore if in the Gospel there be nothing found that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus then I will beleeve the Catholicks rather then you but if you shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle then neither will I beleeve the Catholicks nor thee Why so I will not beleeve the Catholicks because they whose Doctrine I thought infallible have lyed to me concerning the Manichaeaus But I will not beleeve thee even when thou citest clear Scripture for of this case he speaketh and why so because thou dost cite me that Scripture to which Scripture I had now beleeved upon their authority who have lyed to me So you And what now from hence can you gather more then from the former passage of the same nature unlesse you did make good another Parenthetical supposition whose Doctrine I thought infallible This is not in Saint Austin but comes from your own private Spirit And therefore if you will not be ruled by our Spirit because of the former exception to the contrary surely we have no cause to be overperswaded by your judgement without any reason for it Secondly May you not from hence take notice that what I said of Saint â—ustin that in the Testimony here he might speak as in some heat of Dispute For can we think that Saint Austin had such a soul as to say soberly and categorically that he would not beleeve clear Scripture which was cited by any one because Catholicks had told him otherwise Did Saint Austin in your conceit differ in judgement from your Aquinas or did your Aquinas differ from Saint Austin Consider then what your Aquinas saith in his Summes the first Part the first question and the eight Art Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis facta qui Canonicos libros scripserunt for our Faith doth rely upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books but not upon the revelation if any other was made to other Doctours Nay he confirms it by Saint Austin out of his 19. Epist a little after the beginning Solis enim Scripturarum libris c. For I have learned to give this honour onely to the Books of Scripture which are called Canonical as to believe most firmly that none of the Authours thereof did erre in writing any thing but others I so read that whatsoever holynesse or learning they are excellent in I do not think true therefore because they thought so or wrot so Compare then this passage with the other or the other with this and then judge whether either he did not differ from himself in his Principles or did not speak the former as a disputant Thirdly Let me note whereas you do rightly translate Saint Austin as speaking of his beleef by the Catholicks in the tense more then past you give your self occasion to think that he meant the main passage non crederem not of himself then but as before a Manichee And your argument which you produce a little after against this last answer because he speaks here of beleeuing the Acts of the Apostles and beleeving it by a necessary consequence because he hath already beleeved the other Canonical books upon the same authority of the Church doth not overthrow my answer because you say your self that this book of the Acts he did beleeve by consequence by the authority of the Church he was at first moved to beleeve the other books and therefore by consequence he did beleeve the book of the Acts because the Catholick authority did in like manner commend both Scriptures The speaking here in the present doth not derogate from my answer because the beleeving by consequence supposeth an act of beleeving antecedent Also Fourthly note that here he said the
Catholick authority doth commend both which may be done without infallibility For the commendation doth not ingage the judgement in assent necessary but the authority may ingage the mind to have a good opinion thereof and so may move dispositively to Faith Fifthly Perpende it well that it is said by St. Austin that he was moved by the Catholick Church its authority and that the Catholick authority doth commend both not the Roman authority which now is included or to be included And therefore if you could prove that Saint Austin intended as much as you would have and also that his authority were sufficient to carry the cause for the Catholick Church Yet you can have from hence no more then your part comes to of a particular Catholick Church if indeed you were such And therefore have you upon your shoulders such a labour as all discerning Catholicks would detract or retract namely to make good that whatsoever is said of the Catholick Church in the respects of it should be singularly appropriated to the Roman But of this in your 27 number Whereas you seem to vaunt upon your paraphrase could he more clearly say that if once in one single lye he should find the Churches authority to be fallible he should then have left unto him no infallible ground at all upon which he were to beleeve Scripture So you First I deny your consequence this doth not follow from what you have urged that Saint Austin drives this discourse that if he should find them in a lye he could have no infallible ground to beleeve Scripture It follows well that he could not beleeve Scripture by their authority because they had led unto him But though they did not lie to him they might be fallible for they might purpose that which they thought to be true for errour and therefore for their not lying can we not infer their infallibility And for ought I see he doth not here any way give us to understand that he did think they could not lye to him and therefore he could not conceive them upon this impossibility to be infallible As for that which you think an Argument against me that he could not speak any thing in heat or by slip which he so much inculcates This is nothing effectual for how often do we with fervour endevor to maintain that which once hath by incogitance or passion gone from us Yea it may seem more likely because he doth so much inculcate it because we are so eager to cover our imperfections and especially when we are like to make good use of it against an adversary Secondly what doth he inculcate that which you would have But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they say this is under question and therefore his inculcation is nothing to you if he speak it assertively until you fortifie your supposition But one Marginal note of yours more at the sign of the crosse I find and that is this Had he said that he beleeved this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it by which he discovered it to be Canonical then the Manichaeans might as easily have said that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical So you This is no way moving much lesse cogent For first it proceeds from a Negative which in the kind of it unless from Scripture which is the adaequate rule is of no validity Because he did not say so therefore he did not hold so No connexion Secondly by the same reason I may say he did not hold the authority of the Church to be infallible for then he would have told them so plainly he would have made an end of the dispute without any need of using Scripture Thirdly they were not prepared for this Theological Argument because they did not own the Church And now all things being duely considered I think you have no cause to say that I have not sincerely and fully answered what you have had to say for your self out of that supreme Testimonie of Saint Austin And if you compare that chapter with the chapter you mention in the same Number below namely the fifth against the Epistle of the Manichee with the 14. De util Cred. against the Manichees too you will not or cannot heartily dislike my Answers and therefore need I not distinctly to answer this last since here also he doth not compare the authoritie of the Church with the authoritie of the Scripture which is our main question but he compares with the authoritie of those few those turbulent those new men as he speaks who were not like to bring forth any thing which any without doubt might not think not worthy of authoritie the authoritie of the Church as to the beleeving of Christ where also he said that he was moved by the authoritie of the Catholicks Quorum autoritate commotus Christum aliquid utile praecepisse jam credidi Whereby you shall if you will see the reasonablenesse of the former criticism because here he said jam credidi so that it must refer to to him as a Manichee And therefore can you not with Saint Austin beleeve the whole Scripture to be the Word of God from the beginning to the ending as upon infallible authority of the Church because if he did yet cannot you do it which is not to be done and if it be to be done because he did it then it is not to be done because he did it not And I hope those strange stories and those several points which you speak to be in Scripture may be more like to be beleeved upon the authority of the Scripture then upon the authority of the Church since the Church hath no authority but from Scripture not as a Church And therefore if you have no other infallible ground for prayers to Saints and prayer for the dead in your sense and other like points then you have proved he went upon as towards the believing of Scripture you have none Nay you have not so good authority for those and such like points as he had for the belief of the Scripture for besides the difference of the matter he had Catholick authority for his belief though the authority was not Infallible but you have not Catholick authority for your points though fallible But I observe your wisdome You would justifie your points here by Infallibility which you think may be more likely then to justifie your Infallibility by your points of difference Therefore your conditional postulate might have been spared untill the condition be proved If Saint Austin had done so as you suppose then you or your Church would have been more excused from singularity because you had followed him As for you you need not fear singularity You provide against that in your opinion or your Masters for you for you must follow the Church without examination of what they say Their word must be taken but yet your Church may be accused
of singularity because it doth not follow the Catholique If then you will do prudently as you speak go with Saint Austin no further then he would have you follow him namely in the way of Scripture which he understood well and at the latter time of his life but whether he understood it as much as any the Church had which you say may be yet under debate with all respect to Saint Austin since it appears not that he had any skill in Hebrew and if I remember well confesseth that he learned Greek but late So then if in some cases your own Men confesse that we must have recourse to the Original Languages how could he understand them so well And now come we to your grand assumption that what hath been said of the Catholick Church that it is by Christ appointed to be the Judge of all Controversies and that the definition of this Judge is Infallible and consequently a sufficient ground of Faith all the Doctrine must be applyed to the Roman Church and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church And now then you are pleased at the latter end to discover your selfe that you did intend at first the Roman Church but dealt more cunningly then the rest of the Pontificians who do include in the nature of the one and true Church subjection to the Bishop of Rome Methinks this plot of yours might be somewhat resembled by him who had that Phantasie that whatsoever Ship came to Port was his so now every Church must be yours or none as if the Roman Sea were the Ocean or you would have all the Honours that might be conferred by God upon that Church he would please to own signally and to make his conceiving that this Church can be none but your own And thus would you have led me on with some ingenuity to be liberal in my respects and devoirs to the Catholick Church that so you might without contradiction sweep all for the Roman Catholick But prove that those priviledges you speak of belong to the Roman Church and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church You prove it thus First This Protestant Church doth not so much as lay claim to those priviledges and so by her own Doctrine she cannot be Judge or Infallible nor any other Church but the Roman upon the same reason because they professe themselves by evident and Infallible Scriptures their own Fallibility as you prove the consequence to be to the end of your Page of the 27. Number and therefore the Roman Church is the true Church unlesse Christ hath no true Chrch nor hath had these many ages This is your argument which proceeds by way of a negative induction not the Protestant Church nor this other Church nor that nor any other Church doth claim the priviledge of being Infallible Judge onely the Roman therefore otherwise Christ hath had no true Church these many Ages Sir Which will you give us leave to do to smile or weep that men not to be contemned for their Learning and Reading should be abused and should endevour to abuse others by such ratiosinations which are made useful onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We and all other Churches do of their own accord yeild unto you that they are Fallible We save you the labour of the eviction True Churches they say they are and say they are not Infallible and they say also that you only do lay claim to this Infallibility but what then therefore you have Infallibility what because you only claim it Suppose that the Roman Church doth lay claim to Utopia or to the Terra incognita no other Church doth not the Protestant not any other therefore it is due to them Yes but where is this Utopia where is this Terra incognita what be the Priviledges and Dominions thereof they are yet to seek for them who lay claim to them First then make it out that there is such an Infallibility to be had before you challenge it and do not prove the beeing of it by your challenging it lest your Roman Eagle be said to catch at flies but prove solidly the beeing of it by the grounds thereof and then secondly prove a just claim for suppose that others did not lay claim to it what right can yet you have by a claim Is this also given primo occupanti If you have no other tenure for your Infallibility you have none and it doth bespeak fallibility to say the title is good If I might be so bold and surely I may in the cause of the truth of God it is more likely to fall out thus no Church but the Roman doth pretend to Infalliblity therefore is it highly presumptuous and is onely in this not an Usurper because there is no such thing as belonging to any Church We have no such tradition nor the Churches of God and yet also is it an insolent Usurpation of that Prerogative which belongs onely to God and Scripture This is enough to undo your argumentation and you but whereas you say that all other Churches of other Religions do say indeed that they themselves are the onely true Churches it is not true they doe not speak of themselves exclusively as you do Particular true Churches they may be under the truly Catholick Church and therefore they can contesserate one with another with respective acknowledgements but you are they who exclude all from the condition of being true Churches which will not reconcile themselves to you by absolute subjection And since you say that all other Churches but yours disclaim Infallibility you see that we alone do not stand aloof from obedience to your Roman Tyranny So you are not Catholicks in dominion neither Yet you would seem to have some reason for your discourse that one Church must be Infallible otherwise Christ hath not nor hath had any true Church these many ages This is inconsequential unlesse there be some Church Infallible Christ hath no true Church It is a false proposition as we have answered you from the first to the last that a true Church is Infallible and it is now all the question Though it be not true in every point yet may it be a true Church Every error doth not destroy the beeing of the Church and you have very great cause not to presse this lest it be retorted against your Church as it might be to be Even with you that Church which holds it selfe Infallible and yet hath erred is Fallible and therefore by your Doctrine no true Church the Church of Rome holdeth it self Infallible and yet hath erred then this is no true Church And might not the assumption here be proved by your own Doctrine for if the Tradition of the Church be the Rule of Faith then you have erred in rejecting the Millenary opinion which was a tradition of the Church So then your designe you speak of in the 28. Number of not expressing the Roman Church in your dispute you see is destroyed for what you say of
are not yet proved to be yours in the main difference betwixt us nor I think can you prove them to be yours without corruption of the Text or of the sense by you in any other point of importance betwixt us Nay how many of your Roman Communion have given Testimonie to us in Substance of Doctrine besides â—erus whom you have abused as I told you therefore to make him after death speak false to Truth and himself Nay we are what the Roman Church was before the Roman Church was what it should not be and what it was not in the purest Primitiveness and therefore your additional Doctrines which and your universal Jurisdiction pretended have made the breach and discontinued our Communion we could not have from Rome then when it had them not And therefore it is not proper for us to be Opponents for we are upon the Negative Doe you shew that a flourishing visibilitie is necessary to the Church and how it is like to be in your Church in the time of Antichrist according to your Doctrine and how it held in the time of the Arrian persecution Do you shew that you have had in your Communion all the Holy men and none other and then you will do a miracle And let us hear of it no more until it be done As he said Landari non potest nisi peractum Go on with your design and let it be a real defence of your cause by a solid and substantial maintenance of the points you hold and we deny but doe not offer to deceive us with old shooes and clouted and mouldie bread and old raggs and and old bottles as if you came from a far Countrie that you might be of a League together as the Gibeonites couzned the Israelites If you do we shall endevour to discover it Therefore rather think of that of our Saviour Saint Matt. 9.16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth to an old garment for that which filleth up taketh from the Garment and the rent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is made worse And now methinks I should end but for the conclusion shewing as you say my Replie to your papers to be fully answered in your former discourse Sir this is verie odd that you will not answer particucularly my premisses and yet I must combate with your conclusion And yet if I have answered your premisses in the Lawes of Disputation I have nothing to do with your conclusion And therefore whatsoever part of your discourse you refer me to in this your conclusion for my answer to the first Replie since it is punctually answered by me in the matter of it needs not to be shewed by me to be insufficient for my answer For besides that you leave me to find my own condemnation in your paper where I can which is a mightie labour and it may be impossible whereas you will urge a particular formal Judge to hear and determin besides this you may understand that that which is not true in it self as I have shewed as well as you the contrarie cannot answer me for it cannot answer for it self being false and therefore the product of it were it rightly applied in the form would be null Yet have I a fancie that since somewhat in it is not said before by you and somewhat you do charge me with if I should give no Replie thereunto you would think that the cause were wanting or I to it I shall therefore where there is need briefly run it through First you say that I said there was little reason for me to rejoyn because in your paper you wave the Application of it to the Roman Church You make your apologie that it was to no end until I had granted that some Church was the ground of Faith A man must first prove to a Jew that the Messias is come and then he must prove that Christ was this Messias So you I Answer That I think I gave you the true Reason of your not including the Roman Church in your prosecution of the Catholick Church before But in that you say that first a man must prove the Messias to be come before that he proves Christ to be the Messias you speak not congruouslie for Christ and Messias are all one in different Languages you mean that Jesus is the Messias For the Jewes acknowledged Jesus but not Christ But let that passe According to your Doctours you could not abstract the Catholick Church from the Roman Church as I have told you since they include the Pope as Head in the definition of the Catholick Church and that which belongs to the nature of a thing you cannot abstract from it for then you should make a falsitie in your abstraction for then you should conceive the nature of it without that which is necessarie to the nature And that which follows as you say by consequent from the Catholick to the Roman is formerly denied Secondly you say that I say that I might still have left you to answer your first paper with your second And so I say still You Replie that this is onely to stand to what I have said as you also do Let the Reader judge with indifferencie And I say let the Reader or the world judge with indifferencie which of us doth most stand to his supposition without reason or who is most likely to doe so I or you who are so captivated to and by your infallibilitie which you must stand out in by it self which is the Question and if you offer to prove it by Scripture you come upon our ground Thirdlie you say I say you doe not conclude contradictorilie and I say so still You Replie that you alwaies conclude the Churches authoritie to be a sufficient ground ground of Faith and I say it is an insufficient ground Answer But you do not consider that your Arguments or Testimonies doe not conclude the Church a sufficient ground and therefore whether you as a Disputant doe conclude contradictorilie let the Reader judge Nextlie you come to my Eight answers as you divide my last paper And in my first answer you say I spent seven pages to prove the Scripture to be a sufficient ground of Faith So then I have made by your confession my word good that I would give you a proof by Testimonies that the Scripture is a sufficient ground of Faith which I have done with Reasons also thereupon But you triumph this this it is not to conclude contradictorilie And why so You say that I should have concluded that the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of Faith which may be and is true though it also be most true that the Scripture is a most sufficient ground of Faith when it is once known by an infallible authoritie to be the Word of God and also when we evidentlie know that such and such is the undoubted sense of Scripture Thus you But first are there two sufficient grounds of Faith or not as to the same Objects
the not being a rule upon this account the traditions and the testimonies of the Fathers cannot be a rule because they have been abused Thirdly We do not intend the use of the judgement of discretion to rest in that upon an interpretation nor do we oppose it to the authoritie of the Church but we say this must be satisfied in Articles and matters of Faith notwithstanding the decisions of the Church by consonance thereof to Scripture otherwise it cannot give the assent of Divine Faith Every one must be perswaded in his own mind although he doth not make his own sense This private judgement should neither be blind nor heady it respects authoritie but joyneth only with appearance of the Word of God That which you say to the seventh answer was examined before That which you say to the eighth answer will not serve to save you from differing from your self which indeed if it were in way of retractation would not be reprehensible as Saint Austin speaks in the Preface of his Retractations Neque enim nisi imprudens c. for neither will any but an unwise man reprehend me because I reprehend my errours But if you have a mind to see the difference betwixt you and you you may thus Before you said that the ground of believing is the authoritie of the Church since you have said in your second paper that it is the authoritie of God revealing If there be no difference why do you not keep your terms as a Disputant should do But you say your reply is exceeding easie the ground of our faith is God revealing and God revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word So you Now then if you make the authoritie of God revealing to be the ground and cause of faith then it is not the authoritie of the Church because although God doth reveal by his Church yet is not the authoritie of the Church the ground of faith but Gods authoritie for the Church is but as a Messenger or Ambassadour which we do not believe for himself but for his Letters of Credence from his Master and so is it the authoritie of Gods revealing which is the ground of faith And this is made out by that you say to compound your variance You say the ground of our faith is God revealing and Gods revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word then the authoritie is his whereby we believe and not the authoritie of the Church which is but Miniâ—terial And by your own argument are you undone for if the Church be the ground of faith and not the Scripture because by the Church we believe such and such books to be Canonical as you have said before and also here below in this Reply to my eight Answer then also the Authoritie of the Church is not the ground of faith because we must first believe Gods authoritie revealing it to his Church before we believe the Church But also to take notice of that Argument of yours here it is false For we must first believe the authoritie of Scripture before we can believe any authoritie of the Church For the Church as such hath all from Scripture as I have shewed And therefore by your own argument are you undone again for if that be the ground of faith which is first then the Scripture not the Church and therefore the Church may be disputed not the Scripture which we do understand by way of Intelligence through a supernatural light and cannot demonstrate as we may the Church by principles of Scripture Again you seem to differ from your self because now you hold that the Church is the ground of our faith in all particulars causally because by it we believe the Scripture but before the faith of a Catholick which you mean generally must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it so your first paper in terminis terminantibus But now when we believe the Scripture by the Church we may believe that which is plain in it by it self because it saith it not because the Church saith it Do not you now somewhat yield not to me but to truth Truth will be too hard for any one that hath not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost and yet also will it be too hard for him though he denies it Consider then what you have said and what you think and judge how the Masters of your Church will answer it at Gods Tribunal for that everlasting cheating of simple souls with the mysterie of implicite faith And that also which you so much repeat that we must receive Canonical books by the Infallible authoritie of the Church is not yet grown beyond the height of a postulate It hath been often denied you upon necessitie and it did not obtain it seems universally in the practice of the Church or else some of your Apocriphal books were not accounted Canonical for Cyrill of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechese where he speaks in part of the Scriptures he accounts not in the number the Maccabees you spoke of nor some others Yea for the reception of books Canonical Saint Jerome gives another reason of embracing but four Gospels in his Preface upon the Comment upon Saint Matthew not because the Church owned no more as you would have Saint Austin to be understood but he doth prove that there are but four by compare of that of Ezekiel with that of the Apocalypse about the foure beasts which doe represent as he interprets their meaning the four Evangelists You go on and say God revealing is alwayes the formall Object of faith Before every thing was to be believed as proposed by the Church because she proposeth it so that the formal Object of things to be believed was as proposed by the Church under that consideration But sometimes God revealeth his mind by Scripture sometimes by the Church as he did two thousand years and more before the Scriptures were written So you Well then now he reveales himself by Scripture contradistinctly to the Church as well as by the Church contradistinctly to Scripture which you put in one behalf of your unwritten word So then we may believe him immediately by Scripture but whether we can believe him immediately by tradition without Scripture wants conviction Neither doe you exhibit a reason of this Opinion by that which follows that for two thousand years and upwards before the Scriptures were written he revealed himself by the Church This as before is not enough to sustain traditional Doctrine because the Scripture in the substance of it was before it was written but you cannot evince that the word not written is as certain to us as the word before it was written was unto them And the Reason may be taken from
Gods wise Dispensations to his Church then when there was no Word written he would provide that that whereby the Church should be ruled should be extraordinarily conveyed and preserved but now when there is a Word written which is a most sufficient ground of Faith as you confesse there is no such cause of any word beside it If the Scripture be a Rule of faith as you do liberally grant then this is now a rule not onely inclusively but exclusively for otherwise it is not as large as that which is to be ruled and then they will not agree in the nature of Relatives and so it will not be a Rule of faith and manners For indeed the propertie of a Rule doth not only exclude lesse but also more It speaks against adding to it as a Rule of faith and manners necessarie in themselves as well as against the negative of not ordering them by it But then again your former reasoning is inconcludent because God revealed himself to his Church severally before he revealed himself by his Church And therefore this was not the way universally holding namely by the Church even before the Scripture was written And therefore much lesse doth it now bind when the Word of God is written Shew the like inspirations to the Church as the Prophets had by some infallible way and then we shall say that thus saith the Lord absolutely undisputedly without possibilitie of contradiction by the mouth of the Church in whatsoever it pleaseth to assert for the truth of God to be believed equally to Scripture and then a Council is to be believed without Scripture as the Nicene you mean was not believed or to be believed without for it did determine by it and by that Text I named I and my Father are one which Saint Athanasius doth apply to that question foure times in that Epistle you named And if you can prove that Saint Peters successours as you imagine had that transient gift of immediate Revelation as Saint Peter had then ye might say Peter spake by the mouth of Leo as infallibly as God spake by his Then the Arrians had as good a plea for their opinion as Athanasius had for they urged the Council of Ariminum and more Councils as Athanasius mentions in the same Epistle if what is said by the Church must be true then Athanasius must have changed his Opinion Or if you will have alwayes the Pope to be put into the authoritie of the Church for an infallible definition binding the consciences of all Christians to believe it as Gospel then must we believe that what he defines is Infallibly true What because he cannot erre No more then those fourtie Popes which Bellarmin speaks of in his fourth Book De Rom. Pontif. from the 8. chapter to the 15. who have been as he said accused of errour and some whereof none can say that all the distinctions and provisions which have been devised for this purpose can possibly justifie Pope Zephyrine a Montanist then he erred if not a Montanist then Tertullian is not to be believed Liberius as before an Arrian so Athanasius so Jerome so Damasus of him and Damasus could not erre as you hold yet an Arrian is surely in errour is he not Honorius was erroneous too and he spoken of in a former paper he a Monothelite as Melchior Canus saith some Catholicks hold and he proves it by Synods the sixth the seventh the eighth and he proves it by Epistles of Popes if all there be deceived how shall we believe authoritie of man As for Gregory the Third Bellarmin in the 12. chapter of that book doth openly say Vel certe Pontificem ex ignorantia lapsum esse quod posse Pontificibus accidere non negamus So he Then do you reconcile errour by ignorance with Infallibility How is he like to be Infallible in all his definitions when he was ignorant in the Gospel and therefore gave a Dispensation to a man to take another wife if the former had a disease that made her not able for the conjugal debt And Alphonsus de Castro in his 1. book 4. chapter hath this passage Omnis enim Homo errare potest in fide etiam si Papa sit Nam de Liberio à Papa constat fuisse Arrianum Et Anasterium Papam fuvisse Nestorianis qui Historias legerit non dubitat and a little after Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent qui fit ut sacras Literas interpretari possent And how then shall we by your Head of the Church or any other severally or together know the undoubted sense of Scripture infallibly But many necessary places of Scripture do not as you imagin need a Judge or not infallible All things also necessary to be believed are set down in Scripture and the contrary you have not shewed and therefore is there no need of an infallible Judge for the former or tradition for the latter as I have shewed Neverthelesse you proceed thus The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her authoritie to be our ordinary cause of Faith So you Answer As you suppose much for your advantage without colour of reason so you confound much without distinction First the term Revelation hath two respects one to the Agent and so it refers to the act and manner thereof another to the matter of that which is revealed that is the object The Revelation of God taking it passively for the object the matter which is revealed comes to us by the Church because the Word written ordinarily comes to us by the Church But taking Revelation of God actively with respect to the manner to bear your sense that God doth reveal himself infallibly by the Church either in the case of Canonical books or of doubts about the sense of Scripture so it doth not come by the Church and therefore is it not the ordinary cause of Faith which must rely upon infallible veritie as Aquinas speaks in his first part first question eight answer and therefore as before doth rely upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets which wrote the Canonical books and not then upon the Church who was bound to receive these Books and to communicate them So that the Church is concluded to be as an instrument only or a motive of this faith an instrument by its office and a motive by its authority And as for declaring undoubtedly the sense of Scripture So is there not any necessity of a Judge infallible which you would have the Church to be Secondly you suppose that which is not to be supposed that by my words since in those cases the revelation of God comes to us by the Church I must grant her authority to be the ordinary cause of faith and you say also that by my words in this place I must grant so Surely you here do commit
Crimen falsi for I do not see upon the place any half Syllables out of which you may draw any such interpretative Confession I have often upon your occasion said the contrary that the authority of the Church cannot be the cause of faith And therefore whether you have any faith of the Articles of Religion or of Scripture in all your Church is more easie to be found then said And assuredly though we talk of faith in the world the greatest part of it is but opinion which takes religion upon the credit of man and not of Scripture And as for us we have also the authority of the Church Catholick to move our judgement and Scripture to settle our faith And we are more related to the foure General Councils in consanguinitie of Doctrine as he said then your Church now And now at the end of all you doe fairly rebate the edge of your censure of my Expression namely Excesse of Faith But you say my distinction doth no way salve the improprietie of my Speech For there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects But granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that sense it is not truely said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing that which God hath said So then by my Distinctions which is your School of Fides Subjectiva fides Objectiva fides Qua fides Quae there may be an Excesse of Faith in the Object if we beleive more then God hath said supposing we can believe what God hath not said although there be not an excess of faith in the Subject for we cannot have too much faith in that which is to be believed But the quarrel against the speech was not becacause it was not proper enough and congruous in this Discourse but because of the Application of it to you as it now appears and therefore here would you vindicate the Church in this upon the same ground of infallibilitie and therefore for your Faith in whatsoever you believe you have this Warrant Thus saith the Lord. But since this infallibilitie of yours you cannot have without begging of the question even to the last nor shall have it surely by begging you are yet to finde out some Expedience of Means or Arguments how to preserve your selves from that just charge of Excesse of Faith and the chief of that kind is that you speak of your infallibilitie for which you have not Thus saith the Lord. How then do you prove it by Tradition And how do you prove Tradition by the infallibility of the Church Therefore go not to Faith about by a circumference If you have a desire to rest your judgement and your soul in certain infallibilitie by your own word then center in Scripture from which all Lines of Truth are drawn and dismisse Tradition as your men state it for which this infallibilitie was devised and yet cannot be maintained for it cannot maintain it self You close with a passage of Saint Austin If so the words you intend it to set out your Charity to the Church of Christ not to perswade my Faith in its infallibilitie I may love the Church without infallibility because though I doe not love Errour yet must I love the Church when it is in Errour And this gives you occasion to think well of this respective and full answer to your last Paper Excuse me that it was so long ere it came and yet not much above the space of yours and also so long now it is come Onely let me leave you with a Father or two in whose company you are delighted Tertullian in his Prescript cap. 8. We have no need of Curiositie after Christ nor further Inquisition after the Gospell When we believe we desire to believe nothing beyond For this we first believe that there is not any thing beyond which we ought to believe Again against Hermog cap. 22. I adore the plenitude of Scripture And a little after Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina If it be not written let him fear that woe appointed for those who adde or take away And Saint Austin in his 2. book De Doc. Christiana cap. 9. In iis enim quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt Amongst those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture are found all those things which contain Faith and Manners of Living to wit Hope and Charitie For the excellent modification of Scripture in the 6. chapter Magnifice igitur salubriter Sp. Sanctus ita Scripturas Sanitas modificavit ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur And the same in the 7. chapter for the second Degree or step to Wisedome He saith Deinde opus est mitescere Pietate neque Contradicere Divinae Scripturae sive intellectae si aliqua vitia nostra percutit sive non intellectae quasi nos melius sapere meliusque percipere possimus sed cogitare potius credere id esse melius verius quod ibi scriptum est etiamsi lateat quam id quod nos per nos met-ipsos sapere possumus And again Saint Austin contra Literas Petit. Lib. 3. cap. 6. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit Si Angelus de Coelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis Anathema sit Consider what is said and the Lord give you understanding in all things To the Reader How in these times in which there be so many Religions the true Religion may certainly be found out 1. A Satisfactory Answer to this Title will alone put an end to the endless controversies of these dayes This made me think my labour well bestowed in treating this point somewhat largely And because that Treatise hath received a very large answer the examining of this answer will make the Truth yet more apparent That this may be done more clearly I will briefly tell you the Order I intend to observe in the examination of the said answer And because this answer directly followeth the same Order which I observed in treating the question prefixed in my Title Therefore when I have shewed you the Order of that Treatise you will clearly see that I shall most orderly answer the Reply against it 2. That Treatise had a short Preface to tell the intent of it My first Chapter must then be the Examination of what is said against this Preface Again that Treatise did shew five things First it did shew the necessity of a Judge to whom all are bound to submit Secondly That Scripture alone did not suffice to decide all necessary Controversies without a living Judge to
prove that we must not now work on Saturdayes You are to shew Texts in which this point is plainly set down for these Texts I called In place of these Texts you bring your own discourses Now according to your own opinion that Councils though general in their discourses out of Scripture may be forsaken by him who judgeth such discourses nothing so well grounded in the Text as the discourses for the contrary opinion are grounded in other Texts Hence you must needs give the Sabbatharians leave to reject these your discourses with far greater reason then you reject the discourses of Councils Whence then shall we have an infallible decision of this Controversie Your own Doctor Tayler in his defence of Episcopacy Pag. 100. writeth thus For that keeping of the Sunday in the New Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the primitive Disciples At Geneva they were once upon changing Sundayes Feast into Thursday to have shown their Christian Liberty If this were plainly set down in Scripture would not these your illuminated Brethren see it as well as you And you so often called upon for a plain Text instead of bringing infallible Texts bring nothing but a discourse of your own very fallible and proving nothing but a possibility of such a change To the far stronger Text for still keeping the Sabboth you say not a word My argument then as yet hath nothing like a satisfactory answer returned unto it 40. Of my 9th Number The second Controversie which I said could not clearly be decided by Scripture is about our lawful eating or not eating of that which is strangled clearly forbidden Act. 15. But because there may be some reasons alledged why this precept now obligeth no longer though I might insist that we seek for Texts and not for reasons I presse this argument no further having so great plenty of far more pressing arguments 41. Of my 10th Number A third Controversie not clearly decided for you by Scripture I briefly touched concerning the holding the King Head of the Church whom you according to plain Scripture determine to be still the Head of the Church though others hold it very far from being plain Scripture This Controversie must needs highly import that all the Members may have an assured knowledge of the Head by whom they are to be governed This point was before evident Scripture now it is no longer evident Scripture Your answer is first What is infallibly decided by Scripture will ever be so although we do not always find it Sir if you mean what is infallibly decided by evident Scripture is not alwayes to be found it is manifestly false This being against the very Nature of that which is evident when it is supposed to stand laid wide open before our eyes in the same words which made it before evident Scripture You add Secondly That you doe not say every point is Infallibly decided by Scripture because it is not at all decided Sir Is not this a necessary point and be not these your own words All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture and again What is not plainly set down in Scripture is hereby understood not to be necessary Grant these Principles false and the cause is mine If they be true this point being necessary must also be plainly decided by clear Scripture And when you aske me whether it be determined in Scripture that the Pope is head of the Church You forget that we do not teach as you do that all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture but we teach the quite contrary You that hold that on the one side the King is head of the Church and on the other side that all points necessary to Salvation be plainly set down in Scripture you I say must shew me plain Scripture for what you say in a point so necessary as it is for so many millions to know so capital a point as their head is If for such a point as this to which so many were obliged to swear you have no plain Text of Scripture I pray tell us no more hereafter that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture I adde that either you must be far from having any evident Text for this point in Scripture or your most illuminated Calvin could not see that which was evident for he writing on the 7th of Amos saith of our English Church They were blasphemous when they called him Henry the Eighth chief Head of the Church under Christ Of my 11th and 12th Numb 42. A fourth Controversie not decidable by any clear Text of Scripture is which be the true Books of Scripture which not about which we still differ mainly And it is evident no Text can decide this Controversie Of this in general I have spoken fully That for which I repeated it over again is to presse particularly the impossibility that there is to prove by Scripture against the Manicheans that St. Matthew his Gospel is the true uncorrupted Word of God That it is impossible to know it to be Saint Mathewes Gospel you your self confess holding it in plain termes a point of no necessitie to believe this yet sure I am that your learned Brethren in their conference at Ratisbone dared not to deny that it was an Article of faith to believe Saint Matthewes Gospel to have beâ—n written by Saint Matthew And I believe your own Brethren will be scandalized at this your Opinion But before you can goe forward to shew it impossible to prove by Scripture that Saint Matthewes Gospel is the same uncorrupted Word of God I am necessitated to Answer what ye Object by the way 43. You say then first That if the Church were infallible Judge of all Canonical Books yet would it not follow from hence that it should be infallible Iudge in all points of Faith unless causally for we might suppose more assurance to the Church in this particular then in other cases Is it so good Sir Can you suppose a point upon which all depends to be held by all as infallibly true without shewing such a point to be clearly contained in Scripture Why this spoils all Your onely shift to avoid the necessitie of an infallible Church is still to say that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture and that if any point be not plainly set down in Scripture it hereby appeareth not to be necessary And will you now suppose this most necessary point of all points which is not clearly set down in Scripture to be admitted with infallible assent upon the only authority of the Church That we are universally to hear the Church hath many pregnant places in Scripture as I shall shew at large C 4. But that we are to learn this one point and none but this onely from the infallible authority of the Church hath no colour nor shadow of Scripture or any thing like Scripture You must therefore ground this
the world Good Sir in what year of our Lord was it that I did say that this was certainly trueâ— Did not I say so this very last year which was above twelve hundred years since Saint Jeroms time If there were one Hebrew copy then what is that to our purpose now Can we go and confer our Translations of Saint Matthew and see how far they agree with that Original copy which St. Jerom in his dayes did see in one only place of the world Shew me so much as one Hebrew copy now extant in the whole world of sufficient credit to ground an infallible assent If after more then a thousand years loss of all Original copies Munster or any other private man obtrude us an Hebrew Original which hath lain all this while God knowes where by what Evidence will that appear Gods infallible and uncorrupted Word All your shifts will not here help you 48. You would shift first by asking how the Latine Interpretation came to be Authentique I Answer Because it was accepted for authentique and thus declared to be so by the Church which Church when she admitted it was fully satisfied that it agreed with the Original And this she knew by Tradition from the Church of former Ages This Tradition doth not certifie you because you hold it fallible And therefore most certainly I certifie you that you will never believe Saint Matthewes Gospel with an infallible assent until you believe the Church infallible in her traditions Your second shift is this Gospel might possibly at the first be written in Greek Good Sir tell me whether onely possibilities grounded upon conjectures be sufficient to ground an infallible assent And here give me leave by the way to shew you once more the evident unevidence which is in that light by which you see Saint Lukes Gospel for example to be Gods true word and so of all other Scriptures The Greek Copy of Saint Luke you see as evidently as the Sun to be Gods true Word by reading of it and yet this great Evidence is so little different from that Evident inevidence which you call a Possibilitie that Saint Matthews Greek Copy is Gods true and uncorrupted Word that you cannot see with your irradiated understanding whether this inevidence be not to the full as good as that Evidence and that it may not as well ground an infallible assent as that Again how come you to hold it a meer Possibility that Saint Matthews Gospel was written in Greek for if the Greek Text of Saint Matthew be as truly Original as that of Saint Luke your irradiated understanding must needs by its Light see it to be Gods Word as well as you see the Sun by its Light why then do you venture no further then to esteem it a possibilitie Is it a mere possibilitie that St. Lukes Gospel is Gods uncorrupted word Now let us see how slender your Conjecture is though I confess it to be better in my judgement then the light manifesting to you infallibly the truth of Saint Lukes Gospel Let us see I say how slender your Conjecture is to prove that possibly Saint Matthews Gospel might be written first in Greek because the Greek Copy interpreteth the Hebrew word Emmanuel which if it were written in Hebrew needed not any interpretation A pittiful weak Conjecture And this Dart is no sooner raised above your head with weak hand but it falls with a strong hand upon your head again The Greek Copy translateth Hebrew words therefore say you it is no Translation but it is an Original Sir it is manifest that Translations of Scripture usually tell us the Hebrew words first and then the Translation of it So Genesis 31.48 Galaad id est tumulus testis Galaad that is the witnesse heap And Gen. 35.18 Benoni id est filius doloris mei Benjamin id filius dextrae And Exod. 12. Phase id est transitus And Exodus 26. Manhu quod significat quid est hoe By these and divers such places you see how familiarly Translatours tell you the Hebrew word and then the Interpretation of it No prophane mean authoritie would upon so slight a conjecture as this is be rejected and contradicted Much lesse if he made himself an eye-witnesse of what he said Yet you reject Saint Jerom though he saith he did see a copy of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes and you reject him though all the Fathers writings extant stand on his side and this upon a most slender conjecture of your own which would have made another man more wisely conjecture the quite contrary and say this copy Translateth Ergo it is a Translation Whence it evidently appears how little you care either for the single or for the unanimous consent of Eminent Fathers But this being a point onely to bee tried by the Testimony of Antiquitie your Cause is lost without some good Authours can be found for you Your third shift is in place of giving a Solution to make an Objection asking Why our Latine Translation was made Authentique if the Church had made the Greeke Authentique I Answer that I know of no body who told you That the Greeke Translation was made Authentique by the Church Neither Greeke nor Latine can be Authentique but by the Church because the Hebrew Original being lost we cannot know how farre either Greek or Latine Translation agreeth with the Original but by the infallible Tradition of the Church you who reject this cannot know possibly how far translations be Gods uncorrupted word for as you say they are only so far Gods uncorrupted Word as they agree with the Original But you know not how far they agree with the Original Ergo you know not how far they be Gods word Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the Harmony with the other Gospels Sir If any man intended to make a supposititious Gospel do you not think he would take care not to contradict the others But what harmony can there be found in these many things related by Saint Matthew and not related at all by any others Yea one of the greatest difficulties against Saint Matthews Gospel is to shew that it exactly agreeth with other Scriptures from the beginning to the ending And to be the briefer I will onely instance in some places of the beginning and ending omitting all the rest In the very first Chapter Saint Matthew tells us that Ioram did beget Ozias And yet out of the fourth Book of Kings which your Bible is pleased to call the Second Book it is manifest that Ioram begat Ochozias C. 8. And that Ochozias did beget Ioas C. 11. And that Ioas begat Amasias C. 12. and this Amasias begat Azarias C. 14. who is called here in Saint Matthew Ozias I ask then how cometh Saint Matthew to say Ioas begat Ozias who was born three Generations after him And being that these three Generations hapned between the time of David and the Captivity of Babylon they beeing added to
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
errour not damnable because also it very true which you lately said that so men should be bound to assent unto an errour which is impossible Hence that common doctrine of Antiquity That it is not possible to have a just cause to separate from the Church And it cannot be said that any man separates himselfe not from the Church but her errours being she is secured from all errour as appeareth manifestly by our obligation to hear her you tell me that this text obliging to hear the Church is meant onely of trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother which trespasses are also to be told to every particular Church and to Severall Prelates and therefore this place say you maketh nothing for the authoritty of the Vniversall Church Sir I grant particular trespasses are to be referr'd ro particular Prelats and that the Church is not to be called to a general Counsel for every private mans trespasses singular private men are to be condemned by the particular Prelates of their particular Churches proceeding according to the known Decrees and Orders of the Universal Church If he clearly disobeyeth them thus proceeding he disobeyeth the Universall Church And for this act merely deserveth according to Gods own judgement to be accounted as a Publican and Heathen So he who disobeyeth the particular Judge judging according to the known Lawes of the Common-wealth disobeyes the Common-wealth And it is this not obeying the Church and the not hearing her which exaggerates the crime whence you see the not hearing the particular Prelates in so well ordered a Communitie as the Church is may come to be commonly the self same crime with the not hearing of the Church And because all such Prelates when the contrary is not apparently manifest are supposed to do their duty in giving sentence according to the known Decrees Orders and Canons of the Universal Church as we usually say those who disobey the Judges disobey the Commonwealth so generally speaking those who disobey the Prelates of the particular Church disobey the Universal Church commanding them to proceed according to her Decrees Definitions and Canons So that at last this disobedience is against Christ and God himself according to that which God said to Samuel Lib. 1. Cap. 8. They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me And Christ to his Disciples the first Prelates of the Church He that despiseth you despiseth â—â— And therefore Christ commanded the lawful Successours of Moses to be followed in what they delivered by publick authority although they were wicked in their private lives and many of them publickly did teach Errours though not by publick authoritie or authorized by any Definition of that Seat which private Errours Christ called the Leaven of the Pharisees bidding his Apostles take heed of it But concerning what that Seat did by publick Definition Christ was so far from bidding people to take heed of it that he in as general terms as men speak when they would speak without any exception Said to the whole promiscuous multitude and also to his disciples upon the Chair of Moses have setten the Scribes Pharieses All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and doe Mark these most ample words All therefore whatsoever O! will you say what if they bid us do against the Scriptures Why this very saying of Christ sheweth they were secured from ever doing against the Scripture when they proceeded by way of defining with Publick authority If you object that they condemned our Saviour by publike authority you have your Answer Number 9. Say I we must hear the Church and because we must Universally hear her for she doubtless hath to the full as much reason to be heard as the old Iewish Church then had she must be confessed to have full assurance never to gainsay the Scripture And as the Synagogues Authortity was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard onely in point of trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother but was to be extended to All whatsoever they should order So you can not with out depressing the Authority of Christs Church who had a better Covenant established upon better promises Hebrews 8.6 hinder her power from being extended to All whatsoever she shall Order It must not therefore be confined only to trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother But we must of necessity for the reason now expressed argue thus That being she is to be heard even in Controversies concerning trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother much more is she to be heard in such trespasses as are committed by one Brother against all his Brothers and their dearest Mother the Church Then or never he is to be complained of And if this obstinacy in persevering in trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother deserveth that a Man should be held as a Publican and a Heathen he incomparably more deserveth to be held so who being commanded by the Church to desist from such pernicious opinions as ruine the Soules of his Brothers and tear asunder the bowells of his Mother still persists in his impious doctrine and in that most infectious and Soulmurthring crime of heresie the most heinous trespass against all our Brothers Either such a crime or no crime is to be told the Church Yea Saint Thomas calleth Schisme of which Heresie is alwaies guilty the highest sin against the whole Comunity of our brother hood Now this crime is to be told first to the particular Prelats as soon as it is perceivd to be begining to creep like a canker as the Scripture saith Heresie doth If by this judgement of particular Prelats this crime be clearely found to be indeed Heresie or a doctrine opposit to the known former definitions of the Church Universall they are to excommunicate him who is pertinacious in this soul-murthering Crime and this sentence is sure to be ratified in Heaven because he who hath opposed in Doctrine the known Definitions of the Church hath not heard nor obeyed her for which onely fact according to the clear sentence of Scripture he deservedly is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen Now if the Crime be not clearly against the known doctrine of the Universal Church or not so evident against it but many hold the contrary the particular Prelates are bound to acquaint the head of the Church therewith This supreme Prelate of the Church is bound to use the fulness of his authoritie to supresse the arising Heresie He may forbid if he feareth danger in the doctrine that no such doctrine be published untill the Church shall think it fit And then all must doe as Saint Paul saith Hebr. 13. v. 27. Obey their Prelates Thus far the power of the supreme Prelates is extended by the consent of the whole Church He therefore that in this case obeyeth not is guilty of not bearing the Church which single crime maketh a man deservedly accounted as a Publican or Heathen Now though the Supreme head of the Church be as infallible as Saint Peter was yet if
he seeth this newly vented doctrine fit to be declared Heresie if it be so or to be imbraced if it be fitting and proposed to all Christendome then is the true time of calling a general Council and not to let the people contend by allegations of Scripture So though the Apostles were all infallible in their Doctrine yet they would not determine that grave question Acts 15. without calling a Council To consider of this word in which there was made a great disputation for this is necessarie for the fuller conviction of Hereticks fuller satisfaction of the weaker sort and further comfort of the whole Church to see truth to triumph upheld by the shoulders of all Christendom what proceeding could be more sweet or more orderly what exposition more agreable to this Text Tell the Church which denuntiation is to proceed by degrees from lower to higher Judges as is there expressed And Consequently when the sentence of the Highest tribunal of all is rejected then or never a man is deservedly to be accounted a Publican or a Heathen for not hearing the Church universall She therefore under so great a penalty being alwayes to be heard is secured from all kind of errour what soever in matters of faith belonging to her tribunall and so we must grant her to be infallible I have then already found out such a judge as I sought for a judge in matters of faith a living judge and infallible as you would have him wih an infallibility excluding all errour in what soever he proposeth or decreeth or all possibility of errour For if it were possible for this judge to impose an errour Christ could not possibly have declared it to be so heinous a crime not to hear the Church being that it might have been no crime at all He obliged all to obey and hear her she therefore cannot lead us into an error For as you truly say To be bound to assent to an errour is impossible Our infallibility of knowledge concerning this point is as great as it is of those points which are delivered by Scripture And therefore you may stand up to my Creed and that far more securely then stand out against such a Church the not hearing of which is so great a crime This Church is infallible and by manifest consequence only the Roman Church as I shall demonstrate the next Chapter Number 2. 7. Here by the way you tell me That If I would go the right way in this Dispute I should use another method for whereas I would argue the Church to be this Judge which we cannot safely disobey I should rather shew a priori That the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define and therefore ought to be obeyed in all things whatsoever But Sir when I come to use this very method I do foresee that it will so gald you that you will cry out to have this burthensome heavy argument cast upon the other shoulder from which you now would have it shifted to avoid the present trouble it causeth you you shall see if it fall not out as I said And that in this Chapter Numb 52. Of my 18th Number 8. As for St. Austins Authority I must here lay it aside as well as every where else for fear I should lose my labour even after I have proved what I should 9. You fly upon me for flying to that Text of Malachy 2.7 The Priests Lips shall keep Knowledge and they shall require the Law from his Mouth because he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts Concerning the translation of which Text I truly charge your Bible of corruption for reading thus The Priests Lips should keep the Law and they should seek the Law at his Mouth Whereas all Originals speak clearly in the future tense as the Hebrew doth and also the Greek and Latin which two Languages want not a subjunctive Mood you ask Is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome I told you it was not And I did say expresly that I added this Text to take away from you all wondering at us for allowing that to be practised towards the Priests of the new Law whose authority doubtlesse excells those of the old Law which was practised towards the Priests of the old Law in which those who searched for the true knowledge of the Law were not directed to seek that knowledge by their own reading the Scriptures but they were to search it by having recourse to the Priests who never universally should fail at any time mark that I speak by universal consent to deliver false doctrine As for private Priests they be like Private translations of the word of God If what they deliver agree with the doctrine of the Church their doctrine is infallible not for their private delivery of it but for the authority of their Church as Translators are not to be believed for their authority but for their agreeing with the word of God But there is a vast difference in this that the agreeing of the Translation with the Original is wonderful hard to know especially when the Original it selfe cannot be known by those who admit of an infallible Church by any infallible knowledge The argument of the Priests with the Publick Doctrine of the Church is easily known because her doctrine is so carefully published amongst all understanding men And as it is easy to know that Homo doth truly signifie a man for though one ignorant or malitious Fellow should say it signified a beast yet the consent of all others would manifest that mans perversity If a question were proposed in a matter of doubt in which their opinions varied then men are to proceed as I just now declared Num. 9. And then when the cause should be decided by the High Priests he who would not not hear him was deservedly put to death Deutronomy 17. I know you told me in another place that the Jewish Church erred I did deny it why Did not they erre in condemning our Saviour Yes but then the Jewish Church erred not The true high Priest without whom there is no true Representative Church erred not Caiphas was not the true High Priest for another was lawfully declared to be so This other true High Priest was Christ who before his condemnation had sufficiently for a legall declaration proclaimed himself to be the true Messias the true Anointed of our Lord. This true high Priest erred not The true head of the Church not erring the Church cannot be said to erre The true head of the Church defined not with the Council of Ariminumt Saint Athanasius was bound to follow the Church defining which defined not in that Council for the Head of the Church not defining with the body the whole body or Church defined not Therefore I say again you erre when you say He should have been bound in Conscience by the censure of the Church to have been an Arrian The Church is the High Priest defining with a lawful general Council The High
infallibilitie were guiltie of heresie and bad manners and I instanced in Liberius subscribing against Athanasius So that the way your Church hath doth not free you from these crimes and therefore you do unreasonably urge against your Adversarie inconveniences of his principles which are common to yours And yet you will now complain of me because I am even with you The debate betwixt us upon this point lies thus you faulted our permission of the use of Scripture to the people as the cause or the cause without which heresie and bad manners do not arise I answered in defence of Scripture this not the cause nor the causa sine quae non of them since heresie and bad manners have been in those of your Church in whom your infalibility is placed and therefore have you no cause to take it so ill that I answered you so home All the causality you can pretend of heresie and bad manners by a free use of the Scriptures is through mis-interpretation of them is it not yea is it so then how come those who are infalible to be hereticks and bad You had best take away Scripture from all that so there may be no heresie Well it seems you now begin to bethink your self that heresie and bad life are not the properties of a free use of Scripture as we understand them quarto modo but as consequents or inseparable accidents which are in a larger sense as properties namely as omni sed non soli so I construe your last words if I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresie and bad life c. you must then allow us to tell you that you are somewhat disposed to go hence and to deduct and refute the overboiling expressions of the danger of Scripture as to the people at least as if all the heresies and bad life were to be grounded or charged upon the common liberty of reading Scripture And let me come up a little more closely to you I demand of you Whether you will or dare to say that all those who have had the free use of Scripture have interpreted it in difficult places as they judged fit and therefore were of bad life if not then is it not proprium omni And so for heresie you cannot say that every one who hath freely used Scripture hath interpreted or mis-interpreted it unto heresie for how then could he of your Church say si fides in doctos solos caderet nihil esset occuperius Deo Or did they believe without the use of Scripture by an implicit faith in the Church Did they But this implicit faith implies a contradiction in adjecto for faith supposeth knowledge of what we believe in the object though not in the reason but implicit is divided against knowledge and if you say that it knows the Church which it doth believe it will come to this that all the faith of the people shall be shrunk into one Article of the Church and no matter whether they explicitly believe God or Christ or any thing else will this prove good Divinity Or will good Divinity prove this And besides it is not implicit faith which believes the Church but explicit for they must actually believe the Roman Church to be it unto which salvation is obliged Then reading of the Scriptures is not a cause to all though not all the cause of heresie for some have got salvation by it and therefore were no hereticks unless you will say they might have salvation and be hereticks too If you will say it then why would you perswade our people that there is no salvation for us hereticks Then subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation for although all Christians but you according to your Principles are hereticks yet they may be saved because hereticks may be saved However we may have faith by reading of Scripture and if faith then we are not hereticks by Knots argumentation because he would have heresie destroy all faith But you have reason to say that other ways of heresie there may be besides being conversant in Scripture for you know that hereticks have pleaded Antiquity therefore by your Logick you should not plead it for use and settlement of faith Whereas you say Again had not David who was a Murtherer and an Adulterer had not Solomon who was an Idolater the infalible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing severall parts of the holy Scripture Sir I thank you for helping your weak Adversary for this makes for me and proves for me what I said on behalf of Scripture that heresie and badnesse were accidentall at most to the use of Scripture because those whom you account infallible were guilty thereof You prove now by other examples the possibility thereof The sense of the discourse as to badnesse of life is this If bad manners be competible to those who are accounted infallible then the mis-interpretation of Scripture by the ignorance of the people is not the cause of bad maners but verum prius and now you not denying it to be true of your Pope would confirm it by certain examples in Scripture But I hope you meane to reflect this towards the proof of infalibility to be consistent with a lewd life And therefore I answer to you that I deny not the distinction of infalibility in rebus fidei and not in point of action I deny not the distinction in the notion of it but I deny it in the application of it to the Pope I do acknowledge him in one part of it falible in the latter but you must prove him infalible in the former as David and Solomon was and we have done We are agreed in the Thesis that there may be infalibility of faith where there is lewdness of life but we differ in the Hypothesis as you intend it not that the Pope may not be nought in life but that he is not infalible in defining points of faith or manners But you would avoid the danger of my former answer therefore you say But to prevent this and all that elsewhere you can say against the Pope I in my twenty first number desired you and all to take notice of that which you here quite forget I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige us no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre How then doth the belief or faith of a Church I speake not of private mens private opinions invest infalibility in a person hereticall or bad So then let my answer be put into this forme Liberius the Pope was guilty of heresie and bad manners Liberius was according to you infalible therefore the Subject of infalibility may be an heretick and guiltie of bad manners and consequently heresie and bad life are not to be imputed to the mis-interpretation of Scripture Before you graunted me the Conclusion that heresie and bad life may come in otherwise
of you in this dispute you have first said you knew not what and now you know not what to say Tell us where the originall of infalibilitie lies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surely it doth not become infalibilitie to be so reserved To passe this you tell me in your fourth Par. that I lay to your charge the supposing of the question And I am still of that minde For if you say that as things stand we have no other assurance to ground our faith upon but the Church you do plainly suppose that which is mainly in question and so must do until you prove it And I still say unto you as I did that you do not well consider what you say in saying as things stand as if the rule of faith were a Lisbian rule and might alter upon occasions and as if the Scripture must be accommodated to the use of the Church Yes intellectus currit cum praxi And the Scripture is to follow the Church and not the Church the Scripture would you have it so So it seems by what follows for so you answer that though God might have ordained otherwise yet as things stand the Church is the ground of our faith in all points speaking of the last ground on which we must stand to wit not an humane but Divine ground the pillar and ground of truth And what do you say here more than you said before or more than we can say mutatis mutandis Though God could have ordained otherwise that there should have been a standing Councel or a singular person successively infalible to have proposed and determined all things infalibly yet as things stand the Scripture is the ground of our faith in all points necessary speaking of the last ground on which we must stand not a humane but a Divine ground Wherein are we inferiour to you but that we do not put in all points But we put in all points necessarie And what need more And the Church is not yet proved to determine any thing infalibly the Scripture proposeth all things necessary infalibly And me thinks you should if you please think the Scripture a divine ground rather than the Church To take then your own principle The ground of faith must be Divine The Church is not a ground Divine Therefore no ground The Major is your own The assumption is proved thus The Testimonie of men is Humane The Testimonie of the Church is the Testimonie of men Therefore The first proposition in the ordinary capacity of men is plaine For no effect can exceed the cause And the second proposition is as plaine if the men that are of the Church are considered as private men by your own grounds But these men you say being in the capacitie of a Church are inspired by the Holy Ghost so as they cannot erre in any point True if they be assisted with the Holy Ghost Well but how shall I know what a Church is and whether such men be of the Church and whether such men be assisted with the Holy Ghost Yea whether there be an Holy Ghost All these particulars I must be satisfied in before that I can believe by a Divine faith that what the Church proposeth definitively is true A Church cannot be in the nature of it expressed without a profession of that Religion which directs man to his supernaturall end Now this Religion requires a supernaturall revelation as Aquinas disputes it in the begining of his Sums Then this Religion must be revealed being not naturally intelligible either by principles or works of nature Where and how is this Religion revealed you cannot say by the Church for the question is of the Church And so consequently how is it revealed that such are of the Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost or that there is an Holy Ghost Expedite these questions And again consider that S. Austin and other Fathers have spoken freely of discerning the Church by Scripture whe◠in I am informed what Religion is what a Church which the true Church and that there is a Holy Ghost Again I must believe by a divine faith that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth as you say Well but how shal I come by this divine faith God infuseth it you will say well but doth he infuse it immediately as in respect of Scripture So you must say well then cannot you think that he can infuse faith of the Scripture immediately in respect of the Church Answer me is this faith wrought in me by the credibility of the Church or not if not how If so then the Church is naturally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the testimonie of the Church must be resolved into the testimonie of men extra rationem Ecclesiae then is it of itself but humane Therefore must you come to this that the Testimonie of the Church is infallible by Athoritie of Scripture Well then if so then the Church is not the last ground on which we must stand Nor yet is it the first ground as we take it for a Divine ground which you mean for it is not Divine but by the word of God yea if the Church be the last ground on which we must stand then why do you prove the Authority of the Church by the Authority of Scripture And if you say that you also prove the Scripture to be the word of God by the Church yet not as the last ground but the Church is resolved into the Authoritie of Scripture as the last ground for if the Church hath no being as such but by Scripture in the substance of it then the Church must be ultimately grounded in Scripture for that which is primum in generatione is ultimum in resolutione So a primo ad ultimum the Scripture is the ground of faith And so this will be contrary to what follows in your last that we do not first believe the Church for the Scripture If you speak of a generall motive to believe the Scripture so we may begin with the Church upon the account of credible men as towards humane faith but if you speak of belief as Divine so we cannot first begin with the Church because we must first be assured of the Church by the word of God under the formalitie of Divine faith the word of God must be first in genere credibilium unlesse there were a resultance of a Church out of naturall principles which is not to be said And in your following words you intimate as much as if we might first admit the Scripture to be the word of God and then prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church If we may admit the Scriptures for Gods word first then first the Scriptures may be believed to be the word of God without the authority of the Church which is contrary to what you have said formerly Then secondly the Scripture must be the last ground of faith because as before that which is first in generation is last in resolution And
then thirdly Why do you dispute with us concerning the Authority of Scriptures by the Church since we have admitted the Scriptures for the word of God And therefore should you not urge us to the acknowledgement of Scriptures by the Authoritie of the Church but wholly to the acknowledgement of the Church by the Authority of the Scriptures Paragr 5. In the fifth Par. you say you charge me with abating from my first proposition in which I said Divine faith in all things was caused by the proposall of the Church because now I say that when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture Ans And I cannot yet bate you an ace of my charge For your termes are of a believing indefinitely upon proposall of the Church as if 't were the immediate formall cause of all faith and so severall of your Arguments would prove that the Scripture is not at all our rule but the Church And this your first paper made to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore if you had clearly intended the dispute of this point whether we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the Authoritie of the Church and so consequently or causally all to be believed for the Church you should have made this the state of the main question But now you say when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture And do you not go lesse now Do but compare the quantities of your assertions before all things to be believed upon and for the proposall of the Church now some things may be believed for the Scripture which are plainly contained in it And the Church and the Scripture are in our case opposed so then if first all is to be believed by the Authoritie of the Church and now some things clearly contained may be believed upon Scripture then do you not onely abate but contradict your self in effect for it will come to this all is to be believed upon the proposal of the Church somwhat may be believed not upon the proposal of the Church but of Scripture For when we are assured you say that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are plainly contained in Scripture then we are to believe it upon the account of the word of God And your Church can have no higher Authoritie surely than God's word for it Therefore if you say we are to believe what is plainly contained in Scripture when we are assured by the Church that it is the word of God for the authoritie of the Church then I pray tell me why we should believe the Church if not for the word of God Again to consider these words of yours if we must be assured by infalible Authority of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before we can believe what is plainly contained therein then either one of us must yeild upon the case of the infalibilitie of the Church or else nothing plainly contained in Scripture can be by your opinion believed But you think that some things are plainly set down in Scripture though elsewhere you would conclude as if all things in Scripture were obscure and so you now also abate in this and herein we both agree and we think the Church's Authority is not infalible wherein we differ from you Now which think you in reason should yeild you or we One would think you should yeild rather since we can prove that whatsoever is contained in Scripture is to be believed without the Authoritie of the Church and you cannot prove the Authority of the Church to be plainly contained in Scripture yea must yet believe upon your principles the infalible Authority of the Church before you can believe it though plainly contained in Scripture because you must first be assured by the infalible Authoritie of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before you do believe what is contained in Scripture And again thirdly we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God why may not we then have leave to believe things plainly contained in Scripture Certa sunt in paucis as Tertullian saith We say certain necessary truths are not so many Why are not we then well grounded in Religion surely in your account because we do not go to divine faith by your infalible Church Even as the death of Remus it was ordained by Romulus that whosoever went over the trench at the building of Rome any other than the ordinary way should be put to death so Zâ—n 2. An. because we do not go the ordinarie Roman way to the building of us in our most holy faith we must die for ever As if our faith were not true Divine faith because it is not implicit by the Church Which is as much as to say the obedience of faith is not good because it is not blind And this is as much as to say we do not see because we do not see And therefore fourthly since as hath been shewed the authority of the Church is resolved into Scripture and since you have confessed that we may admit the Scriptures to be the word of God and yet may need to be assured of the Authoritie of the Church your apologie for your self in this paragraph must needs be insufficient In the sixth Par. You begin with taking notice of my character of my self to be one of the slender sons of the Church of England whether so or whether he hath shewed that Treatise of mine to be no demonstration Let the indefferent reader after the due pondering the force of all Arguments determine Sir I dare not alter my small opinion of my self And therefore the consideration of such matters should have dropped from a judicious head into a learned pen. And if your demonstration as you call it be indeed such as doth merit the terme you have proved me to be no better than my word And if I prove it to be no demonstration I do not yet falsifie what I said of my self For I shall impute the cause of it to our cause the weakest hand may defend our cause the strongest cannot defend yours To passe this you go on Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you adde the Scripture is infalible but the Church is not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture Ans But you leave out the scope of this Argumentation and the formalitie of the conclusion You spake of as clear a Demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter I told you it was hard to say who does optimum quod sic Well but then I wished you to put it to the test and to try the debate of it by this rule of wisdome and
and pat could the most important matter in debate betwixt us have been more distinctly orderly and fully put down than to have shewn from place to place where I had not answered directly to the state of the question or had hit the question but did not sufficiently take off the Argument And could his Reply be by this manner more clear and perspicuous when it cannot appeare plainly how he took off my Answers or answered to the matter or form of my occasionall Arguments If this be an orderly Combate then let us beat the aire and that will be sufficient to beat an Adversary Thus much of the first Chapter which is no hard Chapter The Answer to the second Chapter No necessity of a Judge in all Controversies to whom all should be bound simply to submit their assent Num. 1. MY Adversarie says here that I go about to perswade him that he is most likely to take up his Religion by prejudice Ans It seems he is pleased to forbeare any Answer to my retortion of his similitude but he takes notice of my returning to him the greater probabilitie of prejudice in point of Religion to be on their part And he argues the contrary because being Recusants upon this account are liable to lose two parts of their Estates and what else we are or shall be pleased to take from them be it goods libertie or life Ans The prejudice on their part was as I said upon the opinion of the infalibilitie of their Church so that I spake upon account of a religious interesse and he answers me upon a civill account rather This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore this answer is not pertinent And whereas he would seem to have good ground in Conscience for his Religion for which he suffers so much if he intends to vye with us in that kind others of our Religion have suffered more from them Surely he forgets the Marian days wherein we dropped more blood than they have done And whereas he saies to me and what else you are or shall be pleased to take from us As to this much might be said also without passion in the same kind No man can take away more from us than our lives one would think Yes Roman Catholicks would take away from us Heaven too They had almost destroyed me upon earth saith the Psalmist But these will destroy us in heaven also Secondly If he who was mine Adversary was a Native of England he was as much included in the order of his deprivation as I. Thirdly I will say more yet that some of his Religion have had more favour than we Yea yet more than this one whom I think he knows well hath lost more in proportionall quantity as Aquinas distinguisheth than any of them hath lost who hath lost but two parts of three and for Conscience too Therefore that character which I gave the Romanist he is to keep still untill he can prove it doth belong more to us Certainly this is not proved not to belong to them because they have suffered so much for their Religion for we have suffered more and therefore it doth not belong to us but them rather But this suffering de se is easily known not to make an Argument for unlesse our cause be good before we suffer we have no cause to suffer at all The saying is common Causa non passio facit Martyrem Fourthly As for the present sufferings of the Papists they are neither rightly charged either upon our Church or upon our Kingdome for there is not yet proved any legall consent of either to what they or others have suffered Nay fifthly At the day of Judgement we shall see whether they are not more like to answer for what we have suffered than we for what they have suffered in these times So that while they do not see what is true against them they will seem to see what is not true against us As Tertullian said But let us come to the matter To examine then your grounds in the second num Num. 2. That God hath made man to a supernaturall end and to be attained by supernaturall meanes we grant as Aquinas in the begining of of his sums Take men indefinitely and confusely without exclusion of Infants dying before Baptisme from Salvation possible and those who are not compotes mentis and we grant it And also that amongst those meanes the first is true faith and that according to his mercifull providence he hath provided us some way to this faith so easie that all if they pleased might be brought to the knowledge of it namely exceptis excipiendis And that the greater part of men are ignorant yea all naturally ignorant of the way to this supernaturall end as Aquinas because it is supernaturall these things we yield to you And that because the far greater part were ignorant it beseemed his goodnesse who is the lover of soules to provide us such a way as that ignorant men should not be able unlesse by wilful carelesnesse to erre by it These things we do willingly yield But we demurre upon your assumption that this way should be the Church as you interpret that of Isaiah the 35 where you say the Prophet speakes of a path and a way which shall be so direct that fools cannot erre by it Here we must stand a while and inquire what is the sense of this way And first I must note that you do not rightly render the words according to the Hebrew veritie You say and it shall be unto you a direct way so that fools cannot erre But it is not so in the text But thus He shall be to them or with them walking the way and fools shall not erre How is your Church like to be this way when either you erre in not following it or it doth erre in not right following the text And you make it to be in the text a direct way and so that fools cannot erre Whereas it is rather shall not erre which doth note so much infalibilitie as preservation from error Now a negative of the act doth not prove a negative of the power for then the Argument would be good a non esse ad non posse Therefore could my Adversary have proved that the Church of Rome never erred which will never be proved yet all is not yet whole because infalibilitie is not yet proved by the not erring but by an impossibilitie of erring And if you may erre by carelesnesse as before then when were any sure of being right for who can be sure he hath been as carefull as he should be and therefore if this be the condition of not being deceived yea of infalibilitie it is at least morally impossible that any should be assured in their faith because they may be wanting in their diligence and so also may demerit a deprivation of Divine light My Adversary goes on To elude this text you say sure we may be that
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
again this obedience he speaks of would be rational obedience and therefore not blind For to follow such a Guide which is always ruled by Christ and therefore never swerves from his word if this can be made good to me that any Church doth and cannot do other is very rationall and not blind obedience If the saying and definition of the Church be assured by Christ and his word to be according to Christ and his word it is necessary to be obedient to it as to what I finde in Scripure though I do not comprehend the reason of it as the Scripture doth bind to faith without dispute so would the Church were I assured by the Scripture that the Church could not swerve from it But here are two things wanting one is of a proof that the Church hath not swerved And a second that it cannot swerve from the word of God For my faith must build it self immediately not upon the former because the power of swerving is not sufficiently secured by the negative but it must be built upon the impossibilitie and this should be demonstrated And still I must mind you that I speake of the Vniversall Church convented in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Supreme Pastor Ans And I still say that the Universall Church so constituted is not free from the least danger of swerving from the word of God And this in grosse were enough untill it were made good by sound Argument Yet also particularly First he meanes the Universall Church representatively for otherwise all cannot come together but then let us have an account why there could not be admitted to the titles of the Trent Councell that which the â—rench so much urged namely representing the Universall Church If it did represent the Universal Church why might it not be said in the title If it did not how does he say the Vniversall Church convented in a General Council 2. A Supreme Pastor in your sense should be proved and not supposed For we acknowledge no Supreme Pastor but Christ which can give life or law to all the Church He the Pastor and Bishop of our souls 1 Pet. 2.25 He the chief Pastor 1 Pet. 5.4 And all Bishops under him do equally participate a Vicarial care of the Church But thirdly the Trent Council according to you was general and confirmed by the Supreme Pastor and Vigilius was the Tutilarie Saint of the valley of Trent and yet the Trent Councell swerved grossely from the word of God and particularly in the matter of half communion as in the twentie first session notwithstanding Christ his institution and the severall interpretations of the Doctors and Fathers acknowledged against them in the first chap. of that session and although from the begining of Christian Religion the use under both kinds was not unfrequent as is confessed in the second ch Fourthly if the Church so constituted cannot swerve from the word of God why did the Trent Councell feare to determine what is the nature of original sin which Viga urged them to upon good reasons And why did they not determine whether the blessed Virgin was exempted from original infection whereof the Franciscans so much urged the affirmative to be defined the Dominicans the negative And yet in saying non esse suae intentionis it was not of their intention to comprehend in this Decree wherein original sin is handled the blessed and immaculate Virgine they do interpretatively exempt her though St. Paul and all holy Doctâ—â—â— did not exempt her as the Dominicans urged and so they do in effect contradict their universal proposition wherein it is said Propagatione non imitatione transfusum omnibus at least it makes that definition uncertain as the German Protestants noted Therefore that which followes in his Paper doth not follow in reason This Church guiding by her infalible Doctrine is this way the Church diffusive guided now by this doctrine was promised this direct way Such a way we were promised a way so direct represented that fools cannot erre by it Ans These words might have been all spared for they are all as Ciphers till one thing be proved and that is the infalible Doctrine as a property inseparable to the Church If the Church goes this way to prove her selfe the way she is not the way because she goes out of the way or else Christ was out of the way and the Primitive Church was not the Church when for so many yeares it is confessed that there was no General Council and is not proved that there was a Pope in their sence as indeed there was none So then the Church universal is not the way universally so direct that fools cannot erre for in all times there was not the universall Church so represented nor the Decrees of the represented Church so confirmed because there was no Pope And therefore if yet the Church had another way then we have more reason to go that way than the way which leads to Rome and from Rome we know not whither but to darknesse and those that follow this way are not wiser by following it for they are not wise in following it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Hierocles said well Both these things are good to know that we do not know and to know what we do not know And surely if we should go their blinde way we should neither know what wise men know nor know neither that we are ignorant Therefore Catarinus and Marinarus took another way to assert certainty of Grace namely by Scripture as we have it in the History of the Trent Council wherein they shaked the Adversaries of the opinion and brought them to some moderation And this example of theirs in following the Scriptures might if we were doubtfull of our cause yet incourage us to give check to that which follows The Scripture as some may conceive for you dare not defend it is not this way Ans All conceive that it is the way but your Church Yea all your Church are not for this Church way Besides those named the Arch-Bishops of Collen Catarinus Marinarus how many even in the face of the Trent Councell have urged Scripture against all other Arguments The antient Fathers made the Scripture their way and rule and therefore their authorities are not answered to by my Antagonist for that they are unanswerable Therefore we dare and do defend it for it will defend us in the doing of it But this Campian bragged of our diffidence We return as he did who was to be put to death as Tacitus relates it when the Executioner bad him beare it bravely he replied Vtinam tu tam fortiter feries So I would my Adversary had as strongly opposed as we are in hope to answer But it were better for them to have either lesse confidence or to add more strength As Archidamus said to his son after an unsuccesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So let them give stronger Arguments or quit the cause Let us see his reason For
definition of the Doctors but rather is evidently against it by which he concludes in this his review the definition of the Roman Doctors to be false And yet this is the plainest text for them And therefore let the Popish Collier be convinced by some clearer Argument out of Scripture to believe as the Church believeth or else to the eternall good of misled souls confesse that if you give not private men leave finally to resolve themselves in Scripture the Roman can finde no means upon earth to put an end unto the main controversies the Church not sufficing for this end unlesse we should take the Church as commending us to Scripture for our direction under pain of being accounted not Christians For how are we bound upon pain of Damnation to believe that Jesus is the Christ without that which is written in Scripture But it will be said that the Popish Collier should not have leave given him to examine the Scripture's sense no more than the Arrian Cobler should have leave to examine the Councils definition but both should absolutely rest in the definition of a Council To this we answer severall things First it is a mighty prejudice to the Roman cause that they account blind obedience to the Church a duty This darke lantern that none should see them but their own men breeds great suspition The Roman cannot perswade the Arrian to rest in a Council and therefore a Council will not make an end with all of all controversies Thirdly if the Arrian were to rest in a Council he would say the Council of Ariminum were as considerable to him as the Council of Nice to the Homorsiasts Fourthly General Councils for the purest times of the Church were not celebrated and therefore this is not the universall way of satisfaction and absolute determinative of faith Fifthly we have no prejudice against the four General Councils we embrace them and they make no prejudice against us therefore if we hold as they hold points of faith we are as saveable as they Sixthly the plainest Council they have for them is the Council of Trent and yet the Popish Collier cannot acquiesce in that because although they say it was yet he may doubt whether it was a free Generall Council And I hope since my Adversary saies we must take infallibility from the Generall Council we may have leave to examine whether that was a free Generall Council And here we must contradistinguish the Church unto the Council and we must not believe the Council for the Church for then the infallibilitie would lie in the Church not in the Council Well and must we take the Councill to be right and good from it self suppose we were to receive undisputedly the Decrees of faith in a Generall Council yet we must be assured first that this was a Generall free Council then it is left us to examine the Council though not the definitions for if the Scripture cannot prove it self as they suppose then the Councill cannot and therefore the Popish Collier may examine the Council And how shall he content himself about the Councill in the generalitie of it since there was so few persons in it sometimes but forty three Legates and Abbots being put in and some titular Bishops onely sometimes forty eight for a good while not above sixty the Prelates of other Nations not there not a Bishop or Divine of all Germany there in the yeare 1546 no French Bishop could be there and therefore no Generall Council As the French King said page 314. and by reason of the paucitie of the persons then there forty eight Bishops and five Cardinalls and not one of the Prelates remarkable for learning and some of them Lawyers and some Courtiers the Decrees of the Council about Apocryphall books and making authenticall a translation differing from the Originall did displease in Germany as it is set down in the History of the Trent Council p. 163. * And for the freenesse of it the Collier might deny that by severall passages for absolute autority was given to the Legats of the Pope to procreed without consent of Council p. 113. Derogations from the liberty of the Council noted p. 232. the Bishop of Fiesole complained of to the Pope for reasonable freedom p. 167 8. Amongst the three things the Pope admonished his Legates one was to take beed that by no means the Popes authority be disputed on p. 164 And yet this is the point which formally denominates the Popish Religion And his being Head of the universall Church as he presumes is the point which denominates their Church the Roman Catholick Yea it was protested against by the French King which was of force against it according to some prohibentis conditio potior as p. 320. And therefore cannot the Popish Collier finally resolve his faith in a Council upon its own conciliarie authority And assuredly if the Arrian Cobler and the Popish Collier were both to dispute the same point one by the Scripture the other by the Council the Cobler would sooner convince the Collier by Scripture which he doth acknowledge as certain than the Collier the Cobler by the Council which he doth not acknowledge so yea if the Collier and the Cobler were equally disposed to finde truth indifferently to their opinions the Cobler might sooner settle his mind in Scripture than the Collier in a Council for the Cobler hath no more to do than to finde out the sense of Scripture and then he is satisfied but the Collier when he hath found out the sense of the Council is not satisfied because if he were assured that a free and generall Council was infallible he might yet doubt of the hypothesis whether this Council were so But it is false in these that a generall Council though free is infallible and that we are bound to believe so for why then would not the Pope put the main question out of question Either he did suspect the point himself or did suspect his own Subjects in the Council or did suspect that it did not bind unto necessary belief or else he was deceived in point of prudence which is most unlikely to have that waved Num. 5. He proceeds This your Doctrine maketh the definitions of true Councils and their finall determinations to be indeed no definitions nor finall determinations at all Ans This in reasoning would prove a Schisme a dicto secundum quid Because I deny them to be finall in your sense therefore I deny them to be finall in all sense is not consequent It doth not follow from the deniall of one species to the deniall of all Finall definitions as to humane Tribunals I acknowledge them but finall so as to exclude the examination of them by Scripture I deny Final as to peace and not to be refractary I grant but finall as to necessary assent upon the Councils account I deny That we may finde truth by them I yield because so many abilities united with Gods
him the authority of the Church is onely binding in a Council with the Popes consent and no Generall Council can be found which did establish the points of Doctrine and Discipline wherein we differ before those Reformers did shew themselves for the Trent Councill which also is not a generall Council was after their beginning as is known and it was called upon their occasion Fifthly as for our Reformation in England from the incroachments of the Court of Rome it was first made by men of the Roman faith So then my Adversary gets nought by this exception And if the Romanists object to us reformation in Doctrine against the Church as in the time of King Edward the sixth we reply as before that we did not oppose the Church Catholick we left the Roman as they left the Catholick Church The whole is greater than the part and therefore had we reason to leave them Omne reducitur ad principium which is a rule of Aquinas We are in Doctrine as the Church was in the times of the Apostles Our defence is in Tertullian in his book of Praesor 35. ch Posterior nostra res non est imo omnibus prior est c. Our cause is not more moderne but more antient than all This shall be the Testimony of truth every where obtaining the superiority Ab Apostolis utique non damnatur imo defenditur it is not condemned by the Apostles nay it is defended This shall be the indication of propriety for those who do not condemne it who have condemned whatsoever is extraneous do shew it to be theirs and therefore do defend it The second inconvenience which he urgeth of my Principles to draw me to his is none Secondly seeing that a Generall Council as you in your first paper confesse is the highest Court on earth to hear and determine controversies c. What then unlesse all were bound to confirme and subscribe to erroneous definitions and all Preachers were silenced and obliged not to open their mouths against their errors This he attributes to me as if I said it or my opinion did inferre it whereas neither is true Nay nor did he find in my papers that erroneous definitions of a Generall Council though the highest Court are to be accepted peaceably reverently and without disturbance namely so as to accept them in assent as true for that would be impossible they may be accepted and reverently and without disturbance as to peace in not opposing though not as to faith in submission of Judgement and because they may thus be accepted will it therefore follow that we are therefore bound to confirme and subscribe to erroneous definitions By no meanes I do not remember that I used the terme of accepting and yet if I did it might be construed in sensu commodo so as not to disturb the peace of the Church and quietly to endure the censure But there is a vast difference betwixt not opposing and conforming or subscribing For not to oppose is negative to conforme or subscribe is a positive act Not to oppose respects the definition as a publick act to conforme or subscribe respects it as true which I cannot do supposing it erroneous Not to oppose regards the Judgement of the Church as authoritative to conforme or subscribe regards the judgement of the Church as at least not erring in the definition And as for that he saies that by my confession all Preachers are silenced and obliged not to open their mouths against these errors I answer first by distinguishing of the matter of the error If the matter of the error be not great as not destroying an article of faith it might be better quietly to tollerate it than publickly to speak against it if the matter of the error be repugnant to an article of faith then we distinguish of the manner of speaking against it and we say we may soberly refer it to another general Council if any be in view If not we may speak the truth positively without opposition to the authoritie of the Church so as to vilify or contemn it Yea further if the Council be free and general it being so qualified it is not like to erre in any decree repugnant to a main article of faith and therefore the question about speaking against it is in this case well taken away And yet further admitting and not granting that such a Council should erre in defining that which is contrary to an article of faith yet must my Adversary have supposed by his principles that the truth contrary to this error hath been established by some other general Council or else according to him the Church hath not sufficiently provided how to settle us infallibly in matters of faith since according to him we must resolve our faith ultimately in the Decrees of Generall Councils and then Council will contradict Council and therefore will not a Council be a ground of faith because one may contradict another and also we may speak by vertue of the former Council against the error of the latter And therefore the whole Church of God is not in a pitifull case by any thing of what I said in reverence to Councils without absolute obedience But to be sure the Church would be in a pitifull case if indeed we were bound to receive intuitively all definitions of Councils in whatsoever matters for then should we be bound to submit our conscience to a Council against our conscience since it is not yet proved infallible and this makes for the inward act a contradiction for the outward hypocrisie And surely if that which is most hard is most easily broken as was said by one in the Trent Council then that he urgeth is easily answered for there is to be sure lesse danger in not speaking against that which is false as he would have me say than in yielding to all as infallibly true as he would have me believe And therefore that which follows returnes with more force upon my Adversary mutatis mutandis A pitifull thing it would be if the Church were bound to believe all definitions of a Council which are not yet proved nor ever will be not to be fallible and consequently some that may be false which being by command from the highest authoritie upon earth preached by so many and not so much as to be consiwered by one would needs increase to a wonderfull height Would any wise Law-maker proceed thus if they could helpe it as well as Christ could by continuing in his word written that infallibilitie which my Adversary hath confessed or must that it always had and shall have As for the infallibility of the Church for two thousand yeares before Scripture was written and that which this Church of Christ had before all the whole canon of the new Testament was finished which was for the first forty yeares of the Church This we have spoken to sufficiently before And this doth at most inferre upon a supposition that the Church was for
thirdly I can charge the Council of Trent with contradictions to it self and the Trent Council was a generall Council in the opinion of my Adversary therefore that grace is voluntarily received is their opinion and that yet we cannot know whether we are in state of grace includes a contradiction as if we did not know our own will what it does This absurdity was urged by Catharinus in the Trent Council Again not to speak of some of them who had voted the Edition vulgar to be authentick and yet did except against the interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sin pardoned in the History of the Council p. 207 there is a contradiction noted by the German Divines in the sixth session the seventh ch Where it is said of justice which every one receives according to his measure quam Spiritus Sanctus partitur singulis prout vult et secundum propriam cujusque dispositionem et cooperationem Which the Holy Ghost doth impart as he will and according to every ones disposition and cooperation If according to his will then not according to our disposition for then it is not as he will And so in the thirteenth session in the first ch it is said of the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus which although we can scarce expresse in words and yet in the fourth ch it is called of the Holy Catholick Church Transubstantiation convenienter et proprie appositly and properly And in the second Canon of the same session it saith of Transubstantiation quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem apellat which the Catholick Church cals most fitly Transubstantiation Was the Council of Trent infallibly assisted or assisted with infallibility in these contradictions and yet it may be these not all Num. 9. But number the ninth will make an end of our cause if a Rodomontado of my Adversary could do the deed Thus And when you ask again why you are charged as if you were opposed to the true Catholick Church I answer Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church and consequently he had such a Church when your Reformation as you call it began But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many and important points of Doctrine not onely the Roman but all other Churches upon earth Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points And in plain English I tell you this Argument which is in lawfull form is unanswerable Ans So then But is this Achilles Is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas if we come near him it is but bombast First we deny it in the lawfulnesse of the forme which he asserts for it is concluding in the second figure affirmatively and in this regard onely it is unanswerable for it is not to be answered for want of forme But yet secondly lest they should think it is unanswerable in the matter we answer to the major first by distinguishing if he takes the true Catholick Church as in the Apostles Creed he commits an equivocation for so it cannot be taken in the minor because we have in the minor the Roman Church and other Churches now the Roman is a visible Church he means and so he means the other Churches to be visible for we cannot properly oppose he will think any but visible Churches but in the Creed is meant the Church invisible which is the object of faith If he takes it for the true Catholick Church visible as always perspicuous and flourishing in visibility in all the parts of it it is denied that the Church Catholick is so visible and therefore we deny the major and need not say any thing to the minor and yet also we deny the minor because if it were not so visible we could not be said to oppose it And he cannot prove that we opposed all other Churches because they were not in his sense visible and therefore how can he say that we opposed all other Churches since if they were visible in the parts to some that were Neighbors yet not visible to the world generally Was the Church lesse the Church in the Primitive times when it wanted candles to be seen in the night or the seven thousand which Elijah did not know of lesse belonging to the Church of the Jews because they did not openly professe the true Religion How then can it be said rationally that we opposed all Churches for how could he or any one man under Heaven know all the Churches of the world then Yea thirdly in how many and important points did the Reformers oppose the Greek Church and the Waldenses who as the Author of the History of the Trent Council sayes had forsaken the Church of Rome then four hundred years before in his fifth book Yea fourthly the major proposition supposeth for all times and places doth it not for so the Catholick Church is properly taken as including all times and places and so we deny the minor we did not oppose all Churches of all times Dato non concesso that we did at the Reformation oppose not onely the Roman but all other Churches yet did we not oppose all Churches or the Roman of the Primitive times and therefore did we not oppose the Catholick Church Yea yet fifthly we distinguish dissent from opposition Although opposition includes a difference yet every difference doth not include an opposition for then St. Cyprian had opposed the Church in differing from it upon the point of Rebaptization And if it be said that the point of Rebaptization was not then defined by the Church we say that yet this consideration doth not make every difference to have in it the nature of opposition for then though St. Cyprian had not opposed the authority of a Church in a Council yet had he opposed the authoritie of the Church which then did bind him more than the Trent Council doth us And that St. Cyprian did so oppose the Church was not then held by the Church Catholick Sixthly to return the Argument upon them Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church and consequently he had such a Church when their deformation went on in the Trent Council but they then in very many and important points of Doctrine did oppose all true Catholicks therefore without doubt they opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points as in communion under one kind in Transubstantiation in Purgatorie in the merit of works in seven Sacraments of proper name in invocation and religious worship of the Saints in Images Yea the Roman Church hath more formally opposed the whole Church because in the Trent Council it would have the Roman Church to be the Catholick which supposeth that all Christians must strike sail to them or else they are sunke Seventhly we tell him wherein the Romanist hath divided from the whole Church but he doth not tell us
the Council or after If before also then we see that one man is not to be controlled by a multitude and therefore why are we upbraided in our Religion with the paucity of the Professors If after then we see that a Council is not an effectuall meanes to put an end to all Controversies Fifthly he doth not advisedly put in these words the lawfull Pastor confirming their Acts. This is not discreetly applied to the Council of Nice for as to this he was first deceived in thinking we would swallow his supposition of the lawfull Pastor in his sense of universality and singularity We deny the Pope to be the lawfull Pastor Secondly Liberius did subscribe S. Athanasius's banishment and how shall we then take the confirmation of a Council from a Pope when he subscribes against it Thirdly the Nicene Council was not confirmed by the Bishop of Rome more than by some other Bishop Yea as it was called By the Emperor Constantine so was it confirmed by him And therefore by my Aduersaries principles The authority of the Nicene Council should be but humane because it had not its esse formale by the Pope Yea sixthly neither is it necessary that after the Nicene Council he should oppose a greater humane authority upon the authority of the Council as if it had been more than humane for he opposed the greater part before Seventhly he did not well consider what he said for if he might oppose upon his supposition a greater humane authority then untill they prove the authority of a Council to be Divine so as infallibly assisted with infallibility there may be a greater authority than of the Nicene Council which is not true notwithstanding And if he meant so he opppsed a Generall Council more than I. In the following words of this number I was glad to finde him so soberly defending the title of Roman Catholicks He saies To avoid this very strife impertinent now to our purpose I used that very name by which no others are excluded This is ingeniously said but he knew that the Romanists are wont to usurp this title And I had good reason to take good notice of it lest my silence should be mis-interpreted For some are wont to take advantage at what is said and also at what is not said But indeed doth he give up the title to the use of others also as not exclusive to them neither in comprehension which would make a contradiction nor in jurisdiction then why doe men contend so much for the Roman Church as Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches Why is added in their Creed to the Catholick Church the Roman Why in the Trent Council was none accounted Catholicks but them Indeed also this is the wisest course if the knot cannot be untied to cut it off so he to avoide the proof of the appropriation of the title to them hath denied the appropriation But this confession I suppose the Priests of Rome would not well accept for in very deed it goes near to the ruining of the cause And this plainly contradicts himself in his own principles thus the Catholick Church is infallible so he says still The Roman Church is onely infallible So he said in the end of the former Treatise then the Roman Church is onely Catholick Now he says he did not exclude other Churches and yet no Church Catholick but the Roman And in this impertinent strife you say many things of which you prove not one If such a put-off might be allowed to me I might soon have done I need not say much to what is said because so little is said to any purpose But he knew he was pinched by mention of the falsification of the Nicene Council about the superiority of the Bishop of Rome and severall other particulars which needed no proof to an intelligent man let the world judge whether if any thing could be excepted against what I said solidly my Adversary would have forborne the offering of it to consideration And also to my former vindication of our Doctrine about the authority of Councils which had four answers he replies nothing but that of Athanasius which might more happily have been left out In the twelfth number he would refute me by noting a dangerous consequence flowing from the premisses of our Doctrine Num. 12. his discourse is resolved into this Syllogisme Texts of Scripture are not able to decide all necessary controversies unlesse as they send us to the Church by themselves as I shall shew in my next ch But I hold texts of Scripture onely infallible Therefore we shall never have an end of Controversies unlesse we understand the texts of Scripture which speake of Christ's promises to the Church of assistance infallible as St. Math. 28. ult and others which we shall have an account of in the next ch This is the sum of his ratiocination Ans We shall shew the civility not to prevent the use and businesse of the next ch but this reasoning will be valid no where it will not grow stronger by the next age Therefore we say not to repeat repetitions that as to the major proposition we deny it upon our account of all necessary Controversies although not upon his account All things plainly necessary are so laid down in Scripture as there needs be no controversie thereabouts In things of question simple error doth not damn But those who make no difference of belief by respect to object or use but do take all upon the proposall of the Church are apt to enlarge the number of things necessary because all upon that account are with equall necessity to be received And yet as hath been noted they have no reason to multiply the number of necessary Controversies for with them there is no necessity of believing any thing but this that the Church is infallible But then secondly as to the major if he meane by themselves so as the Scriptures should formally decide Controversies he fights with his own shadow for it doth not contradict when we do not affirme we say not that formally any Controversie is decided by texts of Scripture but that in things plain there is no necessity of any such decision and in many Controversies the Scripture doth as well in the principles decide it as the Law doth differences civil If he meanes by themselves therefore so as that they do not decide them without sending us to the Church we answer by distinguishing that first in things plaine there is no need of the judgement of the Church In things of Controversie there is need of the Church but not need of infallible determination There is an ending of Controversies speculatively when the judgement is resolved by infallible Scripture there is an ending of Controversies practically by authority of the Church so as to binde the person against disturbance Now the question betwixt us is of the former ending of Controversies which cannot be performed by the Church And dare any man that soberly reads all
the right state of the question All these things he says are necessary to a Church as a Community To follow him again we say first that we deny that all these things are absolutely necessary to a Church as a community for severall Churches have differed from one another in some of them as in Fasts and in the keeping of Easter and in forms of Prayer for as for the Liturgies they talk of they are filii populi Secondly though necessary to a Church yet not simply necessary to salvation Thirdly some of them may be necessary to a Church visible not necessary to the Church as invisible but he tampers about the change of the state of the question to make what is necessary to salvation to be necessary to a Church as visible and whatsoever is necessary to a Church as visible to be necessary to salvation which cannot be true For as for that that there is no salvation to be had out of the Church according to that of St. Cyprian in his Tract de simplicitate Prelatorum Habere non potest Deum Patrem qui Ecclesiam non habet Matrem yet this is to be understood of those that are desertors of the Church as is to be seen there by the comparation of antecedents and consequents and the whole scope of the Tract And therefore simply what is necessary to a Church visible is not necessary to salvation because without contradiction to the Father it may be possible to have salvation without the Church And therefore may I conclude that my Adversary did not well comply with his promise of stating this question a little more fully and distinctly And yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians Ans All he says is not true For the Sacraments are plainly enough set down in Scripture for all that is therein essentiall and necessary Then secondly the Argument is not concluding these things are not plainly set down in Scripture therefore very many and very important differences amongst Christians For first the unplainesse of them in Scripture is no efficient cause thereof for they might in those things give every one their liberty in their particular Churches as St. Cyprian doth plainly shew us in his second B. first Ep. where having spoken of some who did hold those things which they did once take up he speaks notwithstanding sed salvo inter Collegas pacis et Concordiae vinculo quaedam propria quae apud se semel sunt usurpata retinere quae in re nec nos cuiquam facimus aut legem damus cum habeat in Ecclesiae administrationis voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisquae praepositus rationem actus sui Domino redituras So he Therefore may they not all practise the same thing and yet there be no morall difference if negative differences not positive contentions if some yet not many if many yet not important in point of salvation because each Bishop in his Church hath free power to establish what he thinks fit And what Generall Council hath bound the universall Church in all these particularities Yea again the unplainess of these things in Scripture is not the causa sine quae non of these differences for there are differences with the Roman Church against others even in some things which are plainly set down in Scripture as in point of justification against Images to be worshipped against half Communion and generally the differences betwixt us And indeed what is there so plain about which some have not differed And then again how is this mended by a Council Not by their Council of Trent because in their Decrees the sense is not plain Therefore let them find better provision than God hath made directly in Scripture before they find fault with Gods direction as to those things which are important unto salvation for otherwise the term is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is beside the state of the question Nextly he objects the differences amongst us about Bishops with such and such a power and authority and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons and without these no true Sacraments things so necessary to the salvation of all men Ans This is a question belonging rather to the Church than to salvation and therefore we need not say any more to it Yet secondly the differences amongst us are for the most part stirred upon the occasion of the Bishop of Rome and therefore the Pontificians have no cause to impute to us as a fault the disagreement of Protestants in this point because it ariseth in great part from the domination of the Bishop of Rome They thought by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they could never sufficiently gainsay the Roman Bishop but by cashiering the whole genus and therefore to make all sure they denied all Bishops since the Argument is good a negatione generis ad negationem speciei if no Bishop then not universal Indeed here they erred if they thought that the position of Bishops did inferr the universall for it doth not follow a positione generis ad positionem speciei determinatae and therefore they might have Bishops and not him Yea the holding of Bishops by Divine right is as like a mean to destroy the Pope's authority as any other And to this purpose was it so holty disputed in the Trent Council and some lost their favor with the Pope for being eager in the affirmative And in the promotion of Cardinals at the end of the Synod the Pope professed he would passe by those who had stood for Residence and Bishops to be jure Divino For this institution of them by Divine right made them not to depend upon the Pope which would weaken his authority And therefore as to the Controversie about Bishops whether we derive them and their authority from Scripture my Adversary might have done well to have said nothing since if it be necessary to be determined clearly then the Trent Council is to be blamed for not determining it If it be not necessary then why doth he put it in amongst necessary questions To this therefore we say no more than thus Had there not been Bishops there would not have been a Pope and therefore is this an argument that there were Bishops in the Antient Church for how otherwise could there have been a Bishop universall so also had there not been a Pope there would have been lesse contention about Bishops as appears by this that if Petrus Balma who was the last Bishop of Geneva would have turned Protestant he might have continued Bishop As for no true Sacraments without Priests and Deacons we say if he takes Priests in a proper sense we deny that there is now any such to be because there is now no reall externall sacrifice If he takes it in the Analogicall sense we have no reason to doubt of true Priests being rightly ordained And for
down in Scripture For though we have not the formall and materiall number of things distinctly to be believed yet all that is distinctly to be believed may be plainly set down there And therefore if we believe them we believe sufficiently Therefore if he takes the terme distinctly in this sense that we must necessarily know that this is one of the points necessary to be believed we deny it of every point that is necessary although we may say so of some as that Jesus is the Christ because in Scripture salvation is denied any other way as Acts. 4.12 If he takes the term as signifying that some things are actually and explicitly to be believed we grant it but the consequence so is not valid Secondly this returnes upon them and therefore should they not have moved this stone For where have they set down a list of all those things which by every of them are necessary to be believed distinctly in contradistinction to their implicit faith And if they say that they are ready distinctly to believe whatsoever is proposed by the Church so we say that we are also ready to believe whatsoever shall be sufficiently proposed out of Scripture And sure we have as good cause for an implicit faith as to Scripture as they have as to the Church And if Mr. Knot 's judgement be the sense of the Roman Church there is but one fundamentall point of them actually and distinctly to be believed in which are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary to salvation in these words we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholick visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another mind all Catholicks denounce him to be no Catholick So he And therefore why do they urge a particular and Inventory of all points distinctly to be believed when they content themselves with one Generall If the Church must be proved by Scripture as formerly we have shewed and according to St. Austin then one generall comprehensive point might more reasonably be sufficient for us and that is this we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever plainly appeares to be revealed by Almighty God in Scripture But yet we do not content our selves thus for we say all points necessary are distinctly to be believed and they may distinctly be believed because they are plainly delivered more plainly than the Decrees of Councils at least the Trent Council And he that says he is bound to believe all that is contained in Scripture when clearly proposed to him as such by consequent is ready to embrace all points necessary because they are plainly delivered Therefore indeed is our opinion more agreeable to a distinct account of what is to be expressely believed than theirs because we make a distinction in point of credibility by the matter saying that some things are plainly proposed because necessary to be believed though all things are necessary to be believed when plainly proposed The former sort whereof requires absolute belief the latter conditionate to the competent appearance of them to be such as God hath shewed to come from him by revelation He proceeds Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday Every one is bound not to have two Wives at one time Not also to marry within such or such a degree of Consanguinitie Where are all these things plainly set down in Scripture Ans Some things are neither de fide nor de verbo fidei as that the Bishop of Rome is the universall Bishop of the Church Some things are de verbo fidei yet not de fide in propriety of phrase as necessary in the matter as namely historicall truths as that Jesus rode to Jerusalem Some things are de verbo fidei and de fide also as that Jesus is the Christ that whosoever believeth shall be saved The question now betwixt us is of the last kind whether Scripture with sufficient clearnesse sets down all those things which are de fide in this sense So that my Adversary was to prove that these particulars are so necessary to be believed that no man who doth not believe them distinctly can be saved And while he saith so that they are such and doth not prove them we need say no more than that he doth not prove them Asserentis est probare And I am not to answer unto words but Arguments Yet secondly these are sufficiently knowable by Scripture the first by the equity of the fourth Commandement and the intimations thereof in the new Testament The second by God's own institution in state of innocency and by the first Ep. to the Cor. 7.2 But for fornication let every man have his own wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet if they will hold that this is one of the practick credibles in the foresaid necessity they doe endanger the condition of those Jews who had more wives And also they will incurre the danger of being engaged to answer for that Pope who as before gave liberty to take another wife And for the third it is sufficiently declared as to the necessity of knowledge and practice in Levit. 18. And if to the knowledge what is to be done in these we are so strictly obliged by the law of God as that if we misse a degree we are damned it must also be made as clear as whatsoever is necessary that the law of God hath given unto the Pope a faculty and power of dispensing as to Mariages within those degrees If the law of God hath not made these cases of Mariage as plain as is necessary for those who are not so studious to know the utmost of their liberty as to resolve a negative of practice upon any appearance to the contrary then the law of God must as clearly as to exclude doubt shew unto us that infallible directory whereby we may come exactly to the knowledge of what is to be done herein And if this can be made to appear why is it not Num. 5. Other endlesse difficulties be superadded by those other words plainly set down and first to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sense of it I must first know such a book to be the true and undoubted word of God which as I shall shew num 20. cannot be known by Scripture This we have taken away before so far as it concerns the present dispute and we are like to meet with it again it seems and no sober Christian before he had proved an infallible Propounder of every truth to be believed would have raised this scruple But intellectus currit cum praxi as the Romanist said religion must be accommodated for their use To this more upon the place It cannot be known at least by those who can truely swear that they are no more able by the reading of the book of Numbers for example to discover in it any Divine light
shewing it to be true Scripture more than they discover in the books of Judith and Tobit shewing them to be true Scripture Ans My Adversary here was very bold to bring into equall compare the books of Judith and Tobit with the book of Numbers one book of the Pentateuch as to the Autopisty thereof But the Jews who say that every letter of Scripture makes a mountain of sense could see more in the book of Numbers than in those Apocryphal books Therefore if we would resolve the acceptance of one and the refusall of the other into a reason of both and ask why the Jew acknowledged the book of Numbers not the other we must find that the acceptance of the one and the disacceptance of the other cannot fall into the account of the Jewish Church its authority because the question will rebound why the Jewish Church did authorize one and not the other And therefore my Adversary gets nothing by this objection for the Church cannot be the reason of the approbation of the one and the preterition of the other because this difference made by the Church must be determined by a judicious act upon good cause For do they dream that the Church hath an arbitrary power to receive one book and to expunge another out of the Canon Did they not excercise in it a judgement of discretion Now he that discernes sees betwixt two and sees cause why one should be taken the other left Every elective act casts the ballance upon more weight And therefore must we not take the recension of books canonicall from the power of the Church And then again secondly this availes not the Roman Church because if the discerning of books canonicall did autocratorically depend upon the Church its declaration yet as it is noted not upon a particular Church 〈◊〉 the universall Church for time and place 〈…〉 the books of Tobit and Judith are 〈◊〉 numbred as Canonicall amongst the rest by the Canon of the Apostles as Caranza sets them out And therefore they saw nothing in them for their reception and yet did in others And if it belongs to the Church authoritatively to declare what books are Canonicall yet cannot the Church have authority to declare more than the Apostles constituted if they take those Canons to be Canons of the Apostles for otherwise they must challenge a power to the Church not only of declaring what is Canonicall but also of making it such which is more than their great Doctors dare affirm And if they will still plead those books Canonicall let them answer it to St. Jerom and St. Cyrill of Jerusalem and to the rest whom they think not to have differed from the Church and yet have differed from them in this But those who will swear no difference we may say are not willing to see it Secondly they must infallibly shew that this very verse in which I find this point is not thrust in amongst other true parts of Scripture or some word changing the sense either thrust in or left out in this verse and this they must know infallibly Ans Again I must say that we are upon the supposall of Scripture and therefore this should not be called into question which is the subject but this for more tediousnesse must be brought in upon all occasions or none But for the uncorruptednes of the text if they will not believe me let them believe Bellarmin as before who denies any substantiall corruption but then again we are as sure as they for we have for it all the authority the Church hath if it be infallible we have it Again the Scripture is corrupted or not If so then by the Roman Church or by some other Not by the Roman Church they will say then by some other is it corrupted If by any other then first how well have they been keepers of Canonicall truth and how then shall we trust them Secondly if corrupted then how do they know that those texts which are produced for them are not corrupted If by the Church they know them not to be corrupted this is the question which is to be proved and therefore cannot yet prove it For as they say we cannot know the Scripture to be infallible by the Scripture so neither can we know infallibly the Church to be infallible by the Church Though it were infallible yet this must be also known infallibly according to my Adversaries argument Indeed if the word of God did leave witnesse to its infallibility then we are satisfied but if the texts of Scripture be corrupted how shall I be sure whether those they make use of be not corrupted Therefore had they best for ever close their mouths against any corruption of Scripture untill they can sufficiently prove that the authority of the Church is principium primo primum in Divinity For the testimony of the Church cannot exceed of it self its genus It can make no more than an high opinion which comes short of and is too low for infallible assurance But then moreover this objection is retorted upon them How can we be infallibly assured that in the Decrees and Canons of Council there should be no corruption that one thing is not thrust in or somewhat left out since we know that there was a falsification of the Nicene Council as before Since they have corrupted passages of the Fathers as before Since some words of the Decrees of the Council of Trent were changed after the vote as appear in the History So then in this respect as in others we may conclude they have no reason to accuse our way of uncertaintie for we may be sure of this that no way is so full of uncertainties as theirs If the Scripture be true they may be a Church if false they may be Heathens What he says Thirdly after all this c. hath in it no such difficultie as they imagin for the words themselves incorrupted do shew their own sense as being for the things necessary spoken in a plain and common acception And also their Decrees and Canons as before are to be sure more obnoxious to diversitie of sense because they were framed at least some of them for such a capacitie Neither if some things be expressed figuratively doth any such perplexity arise because the figurative expression doth not oppose the literall sense so much as it doth sometimes illustrate it And this kind of speech as to Sacraments in regard of the relation betwixt the sign and the thing signified is indeed naturall and proper Though the manner of speech be not proper simply yet quoad hoc as to Sacraments it is proper And my Adversary might have taken notice that St. Austin hath noted as before that things darkly set down in one place are to be compared with other places where they are delivered more clearly And therefore that which follows about the ambiguity in what sense we must take the words if we go by Scripture only might very well have been
God needed not to have indited by his Spirit any more of Scripture than only to lead us infallibly to the Church Go to the City of Rome and there it will be told us what must be done in order to life everlasting Christ might have laid aside the care of his Church might have devolved that to his Vicar If we would say any thing to such a reasoning we might say first he should have shewed us as fair a warrant for going to the City of Rome as St. Paul had to go to the City Secondly he was sent into the City to know what was to be done not known for St. Paul denies to have had his Doctrine from man Gal. 1.11 12. Thirdly this direction he was to have from Ananias was rather in order to his Function than to his salvation Fourthly Ananias was extroardinarily inspired and indued with a power of Miracles for the restitution of his sight But is the Pope thus Can he give the Holy Ghost as Ananias did Indeed he may ordain but can he give the Holy Ghost as Ananias did At least can he give sight he can sooner take it away If we being blind should take the guidance of such a Prophet he would lead us into Samaria and not set bread before us Indeed Pope Anacletus according to Carranza tels us in the end of his first Epistle that the Apostles did establish this by the Command of our Lord and Savior that greater and more difficult questions should be referred to the Apostolick sea upon which Christ did build his universall Church universam Ecclesiam when he said tu es Petrus c. But when these Epistles are proved genuine and then binding in his own cause and when the Pope who hath the same power shall have determined the difficult question which Carranza puts off betwixt St. Jerom and others whether Anacletus was predecessor to Clement and when it shall be made good that Christ gave to St. Peter universall power over the universall Church and not onely power over every Church as to the rest of the Apostles as it was distinguished in the Trent Council and when they shall have answered St. Cyprian who says the Church was founded not super Petrum but super Petram voce Domini in the 8. Ep. of the 1. b. then we may be in greater necessity to say more to this instance That all might see this City of the Church he placed it on a mountain whence all necessary points are delivered from a living Oracle speaking so distinctly that no doubt can remain of the true sense or if there be made any doubt of any thing of importance this doubt will presently be cleared by some new declaration authentically notified unto us by our Pastors ond Doctors which God gave us as the Scripture saith that we should not be children wawavering and carried about with the wind of false Doctrine with circumvention of error We have put all in for weight we shall answer now distinctly First as to the mountain we must know what mountain this is upon which the City of the Church was built Whether the mount Gerezzin or whether is mount Eball how shall we know And which are the Samaritans and which the Hierosolymitans how shall we discern We must yet wander upon the Mountains to know which mountain is the right Each will claim the Priviledge of a living Oracle Therefore if we were to take our resolves of all necessary points from the Church we were yet to seek which is the true Church And so the prime necessary would be uncertain namely which should be our infallible Propounder and Resolver of all necessary points How shall we resolve this capitall and cardinall Controversie which is the right Church the Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches Yea the question is yet to be agitated and determined infallibly whether there is to be any such it is not yet proved but my Adversary here seems to suppose it Well give it not grant it in the thesis that there is such a Church How shall it be made beyond all question that this or this is the Church for the Hypothesis Whether Jerusalem or Antioch or Allexandria or Constantinople or Rome is the City of that Church how shall we be ascertained infallibly Must the City be built upon a hill in the letter Then indeed there might be some discovery and yet more Cities are so built and therefore no certainty And Rome hath too many hills to be a topicall argument that it is the seat of Christ seven hills are rather topicall for Antichrist as in the revelation Secondly if the Church be as fast to a place as the Heathen gods to their Temples must the Church by vertue of the place always have the same priviledges in the zenith So then if the Roman Church was so faithfull as that for a time they did flow to it for direction in doubtfull cases must it always be as the Oracular Virgin Will Cassander believe it that Cassandra was always so clear in her Oracles What says Lycophron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thirdly may we not as well take Gods direction to go to the Scripture Is not the word of God an Oracle Let him speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4.11 Were not the Scriptures of the old Testament the Oracles of God Rom. 3.2 To them were committed the Oracles of God Have we not a generall command to the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Es 8.20 There is light in the Law and the Testimony always but there is not always light in them that would direct without or beside them But the word they will say is not a living Oracle But the word is an Oracle and it is a living word as before in the Hebrews And the living God speaks to us in this written Oracle And therefore untill we see in this written Oracle that we have and are bound to a living Oracle my Adversary says nothing Thirdly we deny that his living Oracle supposed speaks so distinctly that no doubt can remain of the true sense This is sufficiently declared before in the Ambiguous decrees of the Council of Trent So that indeed their living Oracle speaks after the old sort of the Heathen Oracles as Loxias did so as to preserve truth in one sense or other Each party thought that the Oracle spake for him As he to Vlysses Aut erit aut non they are within one of a true prophecy yea these Roman Oracles have a true sense in them but we know not which Well then also as for necessary points we say fourthly as before that we have no need of a living Oracle because the Scripture speaks so plainly and so distinctly that no doubt can justly remain of the true sense And what needs more as to salvation Yea
not this also that a Minister of the Gospell may competently inform the people in the necessaries to salvation And if a Minister can do it surely the Church But the stresse of the discourse lies in this whether what the Church can doe may not sufficiently be done without the Church And then secondly if not without the Church whether it may not be done without the Church its infallibility Now to this last my Adversary speaks thus that he stands not upon this whether this competent direction should be called an infallible direction or not No doth he not Then he seemeth to yield that which he hath so much contended for the infallibilitie of the Church that that is not necessary He hath formerly urged the infallibility of the Church to ground faith now he either grants that we may be saved without faith or that faith may be grounded without infallibility which indeed in my opinion doth yield the cause But then also they will give us leave to note that the cause betwixt the Romanist and us as to verbum non Scriptum is also yielded hereby for if he will sit down with this postulate that the Church may competently direct us to happinesse through the Scriptures then the word not written is secluded from a competent direction to salvation For the word not written is absolutely contradistinguished to Scriptures And therefore I see no reason we should goe further in this work which is not so hard as tedious But that he calls us back with an Epanorthosis Though we think it most certain that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happinesse Well will they stand to this Where shall we have them If it can then as before If it cannot upon their second thoughts then we say absolute loquendo we grant it thus that the Church not proposing any infallible direction cannot competently direct us and therefore untill they prove the Church infallible in their traditions infallible too or as to the interpreting of Scripture they have no cause by their own argument to obtrude so often the authority of the Church because it is no competent direction to happiness unlesse it be infallible as they now think But take the Church as proposing Scripture which we have hitherto made plain sufficiently as to things necessary so though the Church be not infallible in its own direction yet being considered as bringing Scripture which is infallible it may competently direct unto happinesse And so these great magnifiers of the Church upon due account have left us in the field to defend the Church when they have left it We can make use of its competent direction with the Scripture which is certain and infallible They cannot make use of the Church without infallibility So then as the Catholick Moderator says of the reformed religion that it cannot be blamed in the point of justification since it lays hold upon that which can certainly save us namely the righteousnesse of Christ so also to be sure here we are on the surer hand because we make use of that which is certainly infallible the Scripture and also of that which gives us some competent direction the Church specially taking the Church universally for place and time It is no question that the present Church cannot end the present controversies Now because by the way I did say our Church could not err in damnative errors you conceive me to grant that it may err in points not damnative Ans This is well put in by the way I did say he spake it more than once and it appeared also to be spoken provisionally that there might be some refuge for the Church if it should be convicted of some error yet not damnative And surely it were better for them to lie close under the buckler of this distinction unlesse they had better arguments to prove universall infallibility But since it may be Mr. Knot 's inconveniences of that distinction have been found prevalent and so it is quitted He expounds himself thus When I said these words I did onely take and subsume that which you your selves most commonly grant unto the Church that it cannot err in damnative matters Ans This but one degree from a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says he meant it as we If he meant it as we how doth he conclude against us We hold it distinctively upon the case of the whole Catholick Church though a particular Church may err in points damnative So then he meaning it as we leaves the way plain to inferr that he held that the Church might err in points not damnative If he did take it as we we are agreed and then by Mr. Knot 's argument infallibility is extinguished He used it formerly in way of distinction and specificatively or not If not then the use of it formerly is none if so then he is lost And they may very easily perswade themselves that we can allow unto them this priviledge of the Church that it hath a main advantage over any Minister or private Interpreter This we can afford unto them without absolute infallibility of the Church If they will be contented with such a priviledge to the Church as no Minister or private Interpreter can have they need not exceed the distinction of the Church's not erring in damnatives specifically taken For a private Minister or Interpreter may erre in damnatives Yea also this exemption from errors damnative in this sense gives a demonstrative reason why we should not follow our own interpretations without apparent cause because the Church universall cannot err in damnatives therefore we should prefer that when we see not plain cause to the contrary and because it may err in other things therefore cannot we absolutely yield the Church obedience of faith for its own sake And our differences from the Church in interpretations are not therefore damnative simply because we differ from the Church but if we contemn the Church which hath authority and more faculty and if we wrest hard texts as some men did in St. Paul's Epistles to their own perdition as St. Peter saith Interpretations may be flatly contrary and not damnative till the Church be proved without possibility of error to be without possibility of error let them then hold the former distinction untill they can make good these two points first that the Church cannot err at all the second that all error is damnative These are two hard propositions and therefore if that which is most hard is most easily broken as the rule is in the Trent History they should do well to break them When the Church shall shew her Commission for her infallibility she may 〈…〉 Commission for our obedience intuitiâ—â— Num. 9. Here he begins I will presse again your text and give a second answer Namely the second Ep. to Tim. 3.16 So then now we shall contend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says we render the word for correction so your Bible reads it And why doth
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
unto habituall knowledge and yet error may come by want of actuall knowledge either negatively by not applying them or worse by misapplying them they take such opinions first as are of use to them then will draw Scripture to them as is observed but they should apply their opinion to Scripture not Scripture to their opinion Sixthly and lastly he did not consider how near he came to Blasphemy by comming so near to a contradiction of Christ for Christ says to them Ye err not knowing the Scriptures and his consequence says by consequence that they might err though they did know the text because it doth not plainly set down the Resurrection whereby he makes either our Saviour to affirm that they could not know the Scripture which our Saviour plainly supposeth or else that the cause of not erring is not to know the Scriptures as to that point which how he will answer at that great day I know not And so his Syllogism comes to nothing or worse than nothing For if all things had been plainly set down they should not have erred but they erred therefore all things are not plainly set down His major is false If he takes should not have erred ex parte officii it is true but not to his purpose if he takes it ex parte event us it is to his purpose but not true It is not false that they might not have erred but that they could not err it is false A posse ad non posse non non valet Means are not always used or not as they should be We know our duty plainly in many things yet we do not do it This argument is good against him men have erred about the sense of the Trent Definitions as hath been said therefore all things are not plainly set down by the Church but this Argument is not good against us because we do not allow the form or rule of the argumentation His other answer is as uneffectuall that they might err in the knowledge of the Scriptures because in the reading of them they did follow their own private Interpretation which is the most ready way to err specially when men oppose the publick interpretation of the Church Ans And doth this conclude contradictorily to this proposition that they might not err if they attended to Scripture Secondly they might err if they attended to the Church because for ought is yet confirmed the Church may err and therefore the surer way is to attend to Scripture which they confesse is infallible Thirdly if he speaks of opposing the publick interpretation of the whole Church we allow more reverence to the universall Church than to theirs Fourthly is it necessary that every one who cannot submit intuitively to all the definitions of the Church in points of question should oppose the publick interpretation of the whole Church in plain points of faith Fifthly Maledict a glossa quae corrumpit textum This glosse corrupts the text for there is here a limitation of Christs words which else where he accuseth us of without any colour from the words of the Text. The Text disertly represents the cause of erring in this matter of the resurrection to be the not knowing of the Scriptures without any mention of the Church He will not afford it right unlesse we take in also obedience to the interpretation of the Church and his Church too for otherwise he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not then surely invested with the priviledge of infallibility which was not invested upon them as some of their most learned affirm til after the resurrection of Christ And therefore if this were true it were not pertinent Sixthly upon this whole matter it comes to this that it is with them better to believe the Church without the Scripture even in plain points than the Scripture without the Church for otherwise he comes not up to the state of our question And how good this Divinity is let those learned ones of their Church judge who will thus distinguish of the Scripture that it is necessary but not sufficient which also in my opinion is by them intended on the behalf of the Church indeed but not to bring in a new necessity of an infallible Judge in matters of Scripture expressed but to bring in necessity of Traditions in matters of Faith not expressed Num. 13. Your fifth text is 2. Pet. 1.19 We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto you do well that you take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place untill the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts His exceptions against the validitie of this text are two One that all things necessary to salvation are not there set down when S. Peter spake those words because the Canon was not finished This we have fully taken away before The other is thus how will you prove that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture because one thing is plainly set down Ans To this first take that which was said before about the concluding all points necessary to be plainly set down because that of the Resurrection is so with the reason thereof and the reason is good here also because he seems to confesse that that one point of Jesus's being the Son of God and the Messias might clearly be found in Scripture This me thinks then we have gained that one point is clearly set down in Scripture And this it may be conceived he might grant me because I could draw no consequence from thence against him for so he insists how will you infer ergo all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture We make use of it thus If this point be plainly set down in Scripture then other points also necessarily concerning his being the Messiah must also clearly be set down so then here is a wheel in a wheel yea many inclusively in one and those also clear but verum prius as it seems by his own confession Secondly if I should serve them with a quare impedit why do they not as well admit other points to be clearly set down in Scripture what will they say surely they will say that this point is plainly set down because it is so necessary Well then we reply If there be degrees of necessaries then we may be saved in any degree of necessaries Or if this be set down onely as necessary why not all necessaries For the rule is good A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia If that clearly set down as necessary then all things necessary are clearly set down The same reason is the principle of universality surely with God who doth all things in number weight and measure For although that Axiom Idem quae idem semper facit idem doth not always follow as in finite Agents because they may be defective in their power and there may be want of disposition in the matter they work upon but it cannot be
those texts defended doth sufficiently confirm the Scriptures sufficiency in matter and manner to this end of salvation We do not say that all things necessary to decide all Controversies are plainly set down in it that is not our assertion nor the state of the question betwixt us Our position may be true and yet this false for all things necessary to salvation may be plainly set down in Scripture and yet not all things necessary to decide all Controversies Neither can they maintain this of their Church which they think more fit to decide Controversies than Scripture for then why did not the Trent Council clearly determine on which part many questions should be held But the plainnesse of things necessary is in Scripture sufficient against the necessity of any Controversie as the fulnesse is sufficient against the necessity of Tradition which is their word unwritten And therefore are not we bound by any necessity of our cause to find any Text wherein we are obliged to take the Scripture for our onely Judge of Controversies for the texts before maintained are good to prove us obliged to Scripture for salvation whereunto things necessary are plainely set down If he might have made the state of the question for his own turn my discourse should have been impertinent A ruffling Adversary would have said that he had shifted and shuffled in the change of the question as if we had held that the Scripture did contain all things necessary to decide all Controversies All prime Controversies necessary to salvation if there need be any it doth and that is sufficient for us against them But he thought he had devised a way how this opinion might be made good that the Scripture doth suffice for the deciding of all Controversies thus Yet the Scripture wanteth not that glory of being sufficient to decide all imaginable Controversies because she teacheth us that Christ hath erected a Church built upon a rock the pillar and ground of truth having the Spirit of truth abiding with her to teach her all truth O excellent provision for the honor of Scripture One in the Trent Council as I remember did not like references but would have all done uniformely by the same hand but we must from Scripture referr to the Church And as it is said of Cardinall Bellarmin that being asked a question too difficult said he could not tell how to answer it but he would shew the party one that could and then shewed him the picture of an excellent Divine so the Scripture cannot answer all Controversies but it hath reputation in this that it can shew and doth an infallible Judge of all imaginable Controversies the Church To this first methinks then if it were but for this use the Scripture should be more common to the Laitie because it sheweth so clearly this Judge Secondly let them shew unto us where the Scriptture doth plainly shew unto us this Judge that they may no longer beg the question And Thirdly let them tell us why the Church doth not determin all Controversies as we have said before not imaginable onely but reall Controversies as concerning the Popes power in compare with a Council and concerning his temporall power and concerning the right of Bishops concerning original sin concerning the conception of the Virgin were these determined with satisfaction to all the Members of the Council Fourthly doth the Scripture give the denomination of this Church which is the pillar and ground of all truth that should be the infallible Judge Fifthly if they think the Spirit of truth doth abide with the Church to decide all Controversies by way of an habituall gift then must this Church have more priviledge than the Apostles had for they had the Spirit by way of a transient gift and therefore some particular questions they did not decide by the gift of the Spirit but the Church must have a standing faculty to decide all imaginable Controversies Sixthly may not we as well say this is for the glory of the Church for necessaries to salvation that it sends us to the Scripture which is infallible and clear enough in things of necessary faith This honour the Fathers before the universal Bishop gave to the Scriptures the Romanists now would arrogate it to the Church If they must be brought to a Competition which in ingenuity should carry the honour the Scripture according to the Fathers or the Church according to the Romanists But he thinks according to his principles he is not engaged to finde a plaine Text where this is set down that the Church should decide with infallible authoritie all our Controversies because according to them all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down Answ Then first according to our principles we are not bound to believe it and we must account it no necessary to salvation because it is not plainly set down And how then shall we know it what by its own light or may we know the Church by Scripture and not the infallibility which is the priviledge Secondly How then could he say by Scripture that God hath provided a way so direct that fooles cannot err Thirdly if he confesse that there is not a clear text which sheweth this priviledge of and our duty to the Church then the disputation is at an end for he will not dispute with me from the testimony of the Fathers for causes best known to himself And if he sayes we must be judged by the Church it is the question Fourthly therefore are we in this agreed which is the main point of the question namely that the Scripture doth not plainly set it down that the Church is to decide with infallible authority all our Controversies For if it were plainly set down we also should be bound to believe it as being plainly set downe though it would not therefore be necessary to salvation simply because it is plainly delivered All necessaries are plainly set down according to our opinion but all that is plainly set down is not necessary to salvation ex natura principii And then fifthly if he doubts of this point as to be plainly set down in Scripture then his principles are less capable of certainty than ours for he hath no ground certain of his faith upon the account of the Church because if the Church did ground her infallibility upon her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture she could not by her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture prove that she is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet neither hath the Church or their Church for ought I have read in any of their Councils determined it selfe by Scripture or otherwise infallible to the decision of all imaginable Controversies Nay neither do Bellarmin or Stapleton if I be not mistaken assert the infallibility of the Church in this extent therefore my Adversary in this walks alone Yet he says the texts he will produce hereafter are an hundred times more clear that the Church is to decide all our Controversies than
an infallible assent no more than the first principles which are the object of intelligence And also therefore upon the premisses that which concludes the number might have been forborn Indeed you have brought your whole Religion to as pitifull a case as your Adversaries could wish it These braving words do not hurt a solid cause they are to be returned to the place from whence they came who hath brought Religion to so pitifull a case as the Pontifician who must have religion made accomodable to their pride and covetuousness No case of Religion so pitifull as uncertainty no such uncertainty of Religion as with them For if they ground their Religion upon the determination of Councils wherein onely Bishops have their vote and the Bishop of Rome his confirmation thereof no man can according to their principles be certain whether there be a true Pope or true Bishop as hath been said Moreover we can make use of intrinsecall arguments for the truth of Scripture to be the word of God as well as they We can make use of extrinsecall arguments better for we make use of the authority of the whole Church and do give it in this point as much reverence as is due thereunto But therefore till that which is here said for the setling of our faith be disproved and also till it be proved that we do not make use of these arguments towards our faith of Scripture because we do not pitch our finall resolution in them our ground of faith and of Religion is as good and sound as theirs yea in respect of our own subjective faith more Yea the Romanist might know that he hath been told that Estius doth differ from them upon this point and says that it is not necessary to faith to be begotten by the proposall of the Church in the third B. of senten 23 dist Yea also Stapleton in his Triplication against Whitaker saith p. 103. Ego igitur quicquid in haec causa Spiritui sancto tribuendum est plenissime assignavi c. I have most fully assigned what is to be attributed to the Holy Ghost in this cause asserting these two things both that by faith infused alone or by the testimony of the Holy Spirit alone all faith may be begotten when it pleaseth the Spirit of God to teach any extraordinarily immediately and also although ordinarily a thing is delivered by the testimony and authority of the Church yet no faith doth efficaciously follow without the gift of faith infused by God or without the internall testimony of the Spirit of God And again the same in the next page to the same purpose to clear himself of the suspition of giving no more to the Holy Ghost in this point than those who put the last reason of believing in the testimony of the Church he says disertly Ego enim c. For I have denied and do deny that the last reason of believing is to be put in the testimony of the Church not onely upon that head that that last proposition or resolution I believe the Church to be governed by the Holy Ghost is not had without the inward gift of faith or that he who believeth this believeth this by a gift of faith and not by humane faith or acquisit but especially upon that head that without any testification of the Church or notice of the Church or of the knowledge of that proposition That the Church is governed by the Spirit of God by the onely Magisterie of the Spirit of God one may believe all that is to be believed as the Prophets and Apostles being taught by the Spirit of God alone did believe many things for from hence it follows invincibly against Durandus and others since there can be but one formall reason of our faith and some believe without the testimony of the Church but none can believe without the testimony of the Spirit that the proper and formall reason of faith is not the voice of the Church but must be the testimony the Doctrine the Magistery of the Spirit of God So he And therefore there is lesse between Stapleton and me than betwixt my Adversary and me When all is done therefore we must come to this of the Father Cathedram habet in coelis qui corda docet in terris He hath his Chair in Heaven that teacheth hearts on earth and with the heart man believeth unto salvation Rom 10.10 Num. 21. Therefore in the following number he needed not to take notice of my differing from others of our own Church in this point let them agree with their own men Let Bannes and Stapleton agree with Durand or if they cannot be reconciled let them never hereafter make any difference amongst our selves a prejudice to the cause It is then no more reproach to me to differ from others than for some of them As for the three then whom he says I differ from Mr. Chillingworth Dr. Cowell and Mr. Hooker if they do not agree it it is no infallible argument against me even in the opinion of those three But also as to the first I say and my Adversaries might have known that he held not faith in the high notion of a Divine assent as they do But that a morall assurance was sufficient to it and sufficiently influxive into necessary practice And therefore having this opinion of faith he conceived no such need of an infallible ground hereof but took therefore a common principle for his motive hereof namely universal tradition Secondly if he takes not his grounds from my Adversaries what do they get by him For in his sixty sixth page he says that it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that the Gospell of St. Mathew is the word of God as that all that the Roman Church says is true Yea moreover the same p. 135. doth fairly shew that the Spirit of God may give assurance hereof which he says indeed is not rationall and discursive but supernaturall and infused An assurance it may be to himself but not to any other and again p. 211. that the Doctrine it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God Nec vox hominem sonat And is not then in his opinion the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If then he had raised faith to that height of a Divine assent as my Adversaries do it is very like he would have thought better of this assurance by the Spirit to be more ordinary since universal tradition if it hath any weight must rest in Scripture as it is the tradition of the universal Church which also he contradistinguisheth not onely to the Roman Church for place but to the present universall Church for time because we cannot prove the Church but by Scripture And as for the other two whose judgements he opposeth to my opinion I think they may receive convenient satisfaction by what is said to the former that they did not deny this assurance by the Spirit of God but
make any answer to the reason whereof I have given before And as to his imagination that if the Fathers had perswaded the Heathens to believe the Scripture by its own light they would have scoffed at them we have answered before that we use not such an argument to perswade others but this we have for our private assurance as we cannot assent to Christian Doctrine but by the Spirit for no man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the Spirit so no man can give a Divine assent to the books of Scripture but by the Spirit as Stapleton hath affirmed therefore though we cannot argue to others the reception of these books as Canonical by that inward testimony of the Spirit which we cannot make known to others infallibly yet surely we may be able to prove to the Pontificians at least that there is such a testimony of the Spirit of God in thesi they will not argue from the deniall of it in Hypothesi to private Christians to the deniall of it in universali for they say that the Church which is to commend these books to private men if they think they are to be commended to them is assured that they are books Divine and Canonical by the testimony of the Spirit so that upon the point we agree for the kind of assurance and they come to us for the last assurance onely they will have us to have this assurance mediately by the Church So the whole ratio and account of a Papist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 delivered by Stapleton Dei verbum per os Ecclesiae intelligimus both the faith of the Scripture and faith out of the Scripture we must have it from the Church And yet the Church Representative must have it severally from the Spirit immediately too and so there is lesse difference And yet there was no Council or Pope surely for the first three hundred years in which time notwithstanding men did believe the Scriptures to be the word of God and then no difference betwixt them and us in the perswasion of Canonical Scripture Secondly Dato non concesso that there had been nothing said by the Fathers touching this point which yet as before is not so yet cannot we argue from them negatively as we doe from Scripture because even the chief of their Doctors will say that the Scripture is a rule of faith and the principal one too some but so is not the consent of the Fathers with the Papists in communi for they will differ from them as they did in the Trent Council and specially with my Adversary who hath before contradistinguished the Fathers to the authority of the Church So then as we cannot solidly reason from their use of arguing from the Church that there is no better assurance absolutely so neither could we from the silence of the testimony of the Spirit argue that we must only depend upon the Church But thirdly he might have observed in St. Austin the reason why they urged the authority of the Church for the confirmation of Scripture in lib. de utilitate credendi cap. 5. Scripturae populariter accusari possunt non possunt populariter defendi namely otherwise than by the Church yet he also doth suffragate for us in his book against the Epistle of the Manich. Non jam hominibus sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante atque illuminante not men now but God himself confirming and inlightning our mind within And for triumph Canisius and Hosius besides Stapleton of the Romanists are brought in with their testimonies to the same purpose that we have a greater testimony of the Scriptures than the Church Dr. Whit. De Eccles p. 254. namely that of the Spirit of God As for that which follows Really I think if the Doctors of the Primitive Church had told the Heathens c. to the end of the Paragraph how little doth it weigh with us Really we may think that they think any thing will serve to make up weight We can use to such the same argument with the Fathers without any derogation to our cause And secondly they did not plead the Church upon the Roman account and therefore if they will have all they have no share But to serve them in kind Did the Doctors of the primitive Church tell the Heathens of our ordinary Pastor which should be the Plenipotentiarie of the whole Church Did they tell them of Transubstantiation And had they told them that these things were as credible by the authority of the Church as by a light as evident as the Sun the Heathens surely would have scoffed at them for saying them to be so visible And again he argues from the visibility to the actuall sight not considering what is requisit in the subject namely facultie and will This number is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 25. the argument is this there are as many raies observable in the book of Toby or Judith as in so many chapters of the book of Numbers Ans Would any one have expected so bold an assertion But then why were these accounted amongst the rest Deuterocanonical why were they not accounted by Jerom by Eusebius by Cyril of Jerusalem as before equal to the books Canonical as to confirmation of faith Why rejected by so many learned men as Doctor White in his Defence of the true way doth cite p. 32 Well And how came the first Christian to distinguish them Not by the authority of the Church then by some difference in the books by the Divine illumination For secondly the Church hath not as to the Canonicallnesse of books vim operativam but vim declarativam as at most even according to their greatest Doctors and therefore this they do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ex officio then either they were not declared in the primitive times or were declared by some discrimination from the books if they were not declared there is no necessity now neither that they should be declared if they were declared upon reason of the difference then there are not such raies in the books Apocryphall Thirdly if these books were allways to be received as Canonicall then the Church in the Primitive times erred in not receiving them If they be not to be received as Canonicall as they were not received so then the Roman Church erreth in the receiving them for such And this Dilemma is destructive of their infallibility Num. 26. A sixth argument is drawn from a possibility of some omission of some words in Scripture as the little word not to an impossibility of my discerning this omission only by the reading of Scripture Ans The Scripture is either corrupted or not If the former how can we trust the Church of Rome which pretends it self the Keeper if not the argument is void and Bellarmin holds the latter Secondly Conditio impossibilis facit negativam if it were false it could not be the word of God therefore since we both acknowledge it to
be the word of God we cannot ut sic suppose such an omission Thirdly if there were a not left out how should the Church have power to put it in For then the Church would have power to contradict the old reading and so to make Scripture if the Church had not power then it would be as uncertain as we Fourthly if there were a not left out in things substantiall and necessary it would likely make a contradiction to other texts where the same matter is delivered for it would be very hard to find ony point necessary to be one of those which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now since we both conclude no Contradiction in Scripture for then it would not be true and infallible we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conclude that there is no such omission Fifthly if we may he perswaded by the Spirit of God that the Scripture is the word of God then consequently we are assured that there is not such an omission but verum prius ergo posterius Here we have a seventh argument Num. 27. Luther who had the Spirit as well as I if not in a larger measure contradicts me in the Canonicallnesse of the Epistle of St. James and in ths book of the Revelation therefore this ground of believing Canonicall books is fallible since in a Contradiction one part must be false And thus he thought to pay me in kind for my disputing the error of Councils by a Contradiction which he says If you could prove you should prove that Councils are fallible Ans As for the Metaphysicall Law in Contradictions that one part must be false if we hold any thing certainly true we differ not And concerning the proof of Councils to be fallible by ones contradicting another it comes in here but collaterally this is not sedes materiae and therefore as he brings it in we may passe it with a light foot In point of fact they will confesse they may as well contradict one another as err and therefore we will not now insist upon the contradiction of the Council of Chalcedon and the second of Nice about the Epistle of Ibas But did not the Council of Francford contradict the second Council of Nice in point of worship of Images But also to give them exemplum utile the Council of Laodicea rejected the Apocryphal books as not Canonical the Council of Trent receives them for such Ses 4. So one contradicts another And if it be said that the Council of Laodicea was not Generall we answer that it was as Generall as the Council of Carthage which he urgeth below for he book of Maccabees for this was but provinciall by Carranza's confession But then secondly we say though it was but provinciall yet was it established by the sixth Generall Council as Carranza also confesseth and then consequently the sixth Generall Council and the Council of Trent do contradict And now as to the contradiction betwixt Luther and me upon the case I say first that the argument is not yet valid to his purpose the objects have themselves equally to all but all have themselves not equally to objects and yet though Luther had a greater measure of the Spirit than I it doth not follow neverthelesse that this book could not be seen to be Divine by the Divine illumination no more than it doth follow that because St. Peter had a greater measure of the grace of God's Spirit he could not deny his Master As a larger measure of grace doth not exclude all possibility of sin so neither doth a larger measure of the Spirit exclude all possibility of error Secondly was not the Church of Christ as quick-sighted by the help of the Spirit before the Council of Carthage as then And yet it seems by my Adversary that the Church did not clearly propose the book of Maccabees to be Canonicall before that time and therefore non-acknowledgement in some doth not prove against possibility of certain knowledge And thus if Luther's exceptions against those books were always continued in the height of termes which yet is denied he gaines nothing against us since also Thirdly we return the Adversary his own argument if the determinations of the Church be so clear how doe they contradict one another Next follows the instance he puts of those two prime Doctors of the Church St. Jerom and St. Austin about the book of Maccabees St. Austin as he would have us think held it for Canonicall St. Jerom not So then here is Father against Father and therefore consent of Fathers in all points is scarce a possible argument But the cause he says of this difference was not our ground this we have spoken to but because it was not clearly proposed in St. Jerom's time by the Church But the third Council of Carthage in which St Austin was present declared these books to be God's word and so St. Austin held these books infallibly to be God's word c. Ans Not to passe it that St. Austin might be more likely to swallow the account of these books because he had not skill in the Hebrew Canon as the Greek he learned late And not to passe it that my Adversary names not the place where St. Austin held these books to be God's word and infallibly too it may be he held them so as the book of Wisedom of which before but my Adversary speaks one word here ingenuously that the third Council of Carthage did but declare well and the Council of Laodicea did before declare the contrary This was before St. Jerom's time being celebrated in the year 364. as Carranza reckons and the reason then why St. Jerom refused that book was not because he had not seen this Council of Carthage as my Adversary says but because he had read the Canons of the Council of Laodicea for this was of equall authority to that of Carthage being both provinciall and both confirmed by the sixth Generall Council as the former Author observes and if so then by the way the same Generall Council was guilty of a Contradiction as establishing the Canons of those Councils which in this point about the books of the Maccabees are repugnant one to other Again if the authority of the Council of Carthage did bind St. Austin who subscribed it as to the acknowledgement of these books for Canonicall then the twenty sixth Canon of the same Council doth equally bind That the Bishop of the first sea should not be called the Prince of the Priests or the supreme Priest or any such thing but onely the Bishop of the first sea Therefore let the Roman either not urge this Council against us or receive it against himself Nay lastly we can better answer the Canon against us than Carranza answers the Canon against Rome's Supremacy For the reason which my Adversary gives out of the Canon for reception of those books doth not oblige to receive them equally to Canonical books namely because we have received from our Fathers that
and is therefore assured us by the Spirit not because it is the hardest point but because it is the ground of all faith Perhaps because our Divines often call the Scriptures an undoubted principle the first principle you think they hold this principle like the first principles in Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable because they are of themselves as evident as any reason you can bring to make them more evident Ans No I had better reason for it than the expressions of their own Divines although we need no more if they in effect confesse as much as will serve us in the dispute But it is impossible for them or any other to fix a foot in Divinity but upon this ground or else we shall have no other assurance for the last resolution of faith than what we have in kind for Virgil's or Cicero's works Yea moreover their own Divines give this character of the Scripture because it is true of it it is not true because they say it and yet if it were true because they say it we make use of the Conclusion Or if it be an unquestioned principle because it is already granted to be God's word by all parties then why doth my Adversary call this into question which is the subject of the question and by all parties granted And also this makes it to be a common principle that it is granted by all parties And therefore are we to be tryed by it as by a common principle and not by the Church which is not granted by all parties to be that we should be tryed by specially if it be assumed that the Roman Church is the onely Church for then there will be a double Controversie one in thesi whether all faith is ultimately to be resolved by the Church and then another in hypothesi whether the Roman be the Church But we now put together that which he distinguisheth the Scripture is an undoubted principle and the first principle but not as the principle of Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable c. We discourse thus That which is indemonstrable is as the principle of Sciences but that which is as evident as any reason can be brought for it to make it more evident is indemonstrable therefore is it as a principle of Sciences The proposition is with my Adversary the propertie of the first principles in Sciences The Assumption is with my Adversary the very ratio formalis indemonstrabilitatis so then if the Scripture to be the word of God be as evident as any reason that can be brought for it to make it more evident then we have what we now contend for Now then if the Scripture cannot be demonstrated to be the word of God by the Church a priori then is it as evident as any reason can be brought for it but verum prius for the Church must be demonstrated by the Scriptures as we have often proved And if the Scripture were demonstrated by the Church a priori then were the Church the cause of Scripture which they themselves do not say and therefore may we give a reason of the Church by the Scripture and not infallibly of the Scripture by the Church and therefore is it as a prime principle in Sciences indemonstrable And yet my Adversary would circumvent me in the next number and bring me into a circle thinking that I am bound to give another proof by the Spirit why by the Spirit I do believe that the Scripture is the word of God but we stop him at first before he goes his rounds for he supposeth that which is not to be supposed that the testimony of the Spirit is not sufficient to make it self good to us of it self and that therefore we need another revelation secure from all illusion to ascertain me the former Ans This is little lesse than trifling for first we say not this internall testimony is proveable to others faith objective is proveable by Scripture but faith subjective is not proved but somewhat shewed by a good life for faith works by love as St. Paul And optimus Syllogismus bona vita as he said the best argument to others we have of faith is a good life But secondly we are as secure of the not being deceived in the testimony of the Spirit as the Apostles were in the kind Yea if we cannot be ascertained by the same testimony then how can the Council be assured that they are infallibly assisted by the Spirit Yea thirdly we are upon the higher ground for the assecuration of our faith because we resolve it into that which is antecedent to the Church and therefore have they lesse cause to put us upon intergatories why we believe the Scriptures for if we do not believe it for it self we have no reason to believe the Church To his Dilemma then Either I try the Spirit whether it be of God or no if I do not how am I then secure If I doe by what infallible means If I say by the Scripture you must needs laugh because you speak of the first act of belief c. Ans We say first that he misapplieth the text of the Apostle Trie the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 it is not meant of the Spirit of God I hope he thinks but of the Spirits of men which is our argument against them and therefore can we not sit down with absolute belief to what is proposed by man till we see it center'd upon the word of God which we believe infallibly came from God Secondly the tryall of the Spirits there injoined is by examining the matter whether proportionable to the word of faith but here he draws it to the triall of Scripture it self which is the rule of triall Thirdly though we do not try the testimony of the Spirit attesting to us the truth of Scripture yet the matter of Scripture may we compare with universall tradition which serves us for our use in the ministry of the Church not for our faith in the causality thereof Fourthly to be even with my Adversaries we return them their Dilemma they say we must believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Church which they say is infallible but we must infallibly know that this testimony of the Church is infallible by the Spirit of truth which leads us into all truth And this cannot be infallibly known but by a Revelation secure from all illusion And how come they by this revelation Either they try the Spirit or not if not how can they be secure If they doe by what infallible means If they say by the Church we must needs laugh because we speak of the first act of belief by which we first begin to believe the Church to be infallible Therefore all his agains are sent back again and the issue of all will come to this either this faith of the Scripture to be the word of God must be resolved into the testimony of the Spirit or of the
Church not of the Church because the testimony thereof is resolved into Scripture of which the question is yea if the testimony of the Church were infallible it must be infallibly proved by the Scripture and also that it is our rule of faith But thus we see the importunity of the Pontifician for their cause if we should say we resolve our faith of the Scriptures into the testimony of the Church they would never ask us a reason of our faith but when we say we resolve it into the internall testimony of the Spirit for our own private assurance they will not let us sit down with that but will demand a proof thereof although the testimony of the Church if it were the formall reason of our faith must be infallibly made good to us by the internall testimony of the Spirit but that which they would have us rest in for the Church we may not rest in for the Scripture And yet also have we other arguments from Scripture it self which have more moment in them unto the belief of Scripture than the meer testimony of the Church as Dr. White notes in the twenty sixth p. of the way to the true Church which is worthy to be perused also upon this account that there are severall testimonies collected even of Papists for the belief of Scripture without dependence upon the Church as of Canisius Bellarmin Biet Gregorie of Valence Stapleton some whereof we have quoted allready So then by my Adversaries own argument if we need not depend upon the Church for belief of Scripture then not for other points of faith The thirtieth Article hath nothing in it considerable but for us first that he saith it to be that most fundamentall Article that such and such books be infallibly God's word So then if it be the most fundamentall article then it is also fundamentall to the Church otherwise it is not that most fundamentall article but the Church must be the most fundamentall article And if it be fundamental to the Church then we resolve our faith in the highest principle and that which is primo primum and the Papists resolve themselves into that which is at best but secundo primum Our faith then being rooted in Scripture we can give a check to their vaunting of the priviledge of the Church as St. Paul did to the Jew but if thou boastest thou dost not bear the root but the root thee so the Church doth not bear the Scripture but the Scripture it And secondly we note in his thirtieth number what he saith Take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane We assume this infallible assistance is not yet proved and till it be proved the authority is but humane and yet doe we not scoff at the authority of the Church as he chargeth us but do make good use of it without infallibility And thirdly we might note that if some other had the answering of these papers he might tell them that they are mendicants of the question for first here they say that they ground this point upon the authority of the Church as being infallible And then again she hath an infallible authority which we account a fansie and yet again this infallibility alone must be that which groundeth not this perswasion but this infallible assent And yet again take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane These things so nearly belonging and essentially to the question are to be proved not supposed yet all must be supposed by them that so they might not seem to run at the ring and hit it as we may speak only the last hath a truth in it but also it supposeth in the drift a supposition for their use But at the last we have an appearance of an argument We have no other infallible ground left us but the authority of the Church assisted by the Holy Ghost since the Scripture hath no where revealed which books be Scripture which not Ans To this we say three things first that the argument is no way cogent because there is no necessity of either if we can be assured by the Holy Ghost that these books be Canonicall And if we cannot how did the Church at first assure it self that they were Canonicall So then Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is Secondly unlesse they prove the authority of the Church better they had better have left this out for otherwise there is no ground of faith unlesse our ground be admitted if this be a true Dis-junctive proposition that either the Scripture must set down which books be Canonicall which not or else the Church in the proposall must be infallible And yet if the Scripture should have set down which books were Canonicall it must be resolved whether that book wherein they were set down was Canonicall by the Holy Ghost also Then thirdly if the disjunctive be not true then his discourse is false if it be true in the proposition then we assume against them that the Scripture hath no where revealed whether the Church is infallible and therefore there is no other way to know it to be infallible but by it selfe So then it must prove the testimony of the H. G. by it self and if it can then may we prove the testimony of the Holy Ghost concerning Scripture by it selfe if not where will they set up In the 31. Num. he would squat Num. 31. and deceive the chase by a distinction which will not stay him from running round in the proving of Scripture by the Church and the Church by Scripture He sayes No Sir you never heard me give this reason unlesse it were when I spake to one who independently of the Church do professe himself to believe the Scripture to be God's word as you do And this is the effect of this Number for his defence and of those Divines who do not deale thus in proving the Church by the Scripture with all those who have not admitted the Scripture as infallible for they first prove the authority of the Church and that independently of the Scripture to be infallible Answ This covering is too short and indeed not sound for I am not bound to take notice how they prove it to others but how they prove it to me If they prove it thus to me then by their owne confession they are included in a circle And they prove it thus to me because I hold the Scripture to be God's word independently of the Church and so he saith of me as you do Secondly whereas he sayes If I be a Scholar I may know that their Divines do not answer so when they are put upon the question Why do you believe the Church I do answer that for my part I never pretended to be a Scholar as they do signanter I have neither head nor heart nor body nor books for the Controversies but yet this I
know that de officio this is the way of constituting and so of distinguishing the Church and de facto this is the way that S. Austin and also some of their owne Divines do prove the Church by yea this is the way which my Adversaries must take and do And thirdly neither do we say that we believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit but to those who do professe the beliefe of the Scripture to be the word of God And therefore are we even with them in this kinde for as they deale with Heathens as to the proofe of Scripture by the Church so do we also as the Fathers were wont by the Church universal And I can use the authority of the Church as an inducement unto the Heathen although the Pontificians cannot use the authority of the Chnrch to me as the determinative of faith So then if they can prove the authority of the Church infallibly to be infallible without dependence upon the Scripture they shall indeed speak to the purpose Otherwise they are shut up in a circle out of which they can never move their foot The thirty second number hath in it much and little longae Num. 32. Ambages sed summa sequor fastigia rerum The intendment of it is to fix the wheel by assuring the Church to be infallible without running to the Scripture In the beginning of it it would prove their faith good because they believed those who delivered it had Commission from God But this satisfieth not because the question rebounds upon them why they believed that those who delivered it had Commission from God If they say they had assurance thereof by the Spirit then they come to our kind of assurance Therefore they determine this belief upon two motives one comming from the Doctrine in order to God change of life the other from God in order to the Doctrine in miracles and there he amplifies in two leaves which might have been dispatched in three words Indeed the first he says not much of for it is no concluding argument For first it doth not distinguish Doctrines for thus the Jew the Arrian the Socinian the Sectary might prove his Doctrine infallible Secondly the good life if it were a result of Doctrine yet not from the points of difference but the generall fundamentalls of Christian faith wherein the Controversies lie not Yea thirdly if this new life did proceed by way of emanation or absolute connexion from the points of difference we might join issue with them and have the better Yea fourthly Judas had a right Commission and yet no good life Yea fifthly the manners are rather to be proved good by the practicall Doctrine than speculative Doctrine if any Doctrine ultimately be such proved good by manners Therefore good life is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Divine Doctrine nor yet of a Divine Commission Yea sixthly Dato non concesso that we mighr know the Church and Doctrine of it to be infallible by good life yet this is not conformable to their postulate that God should teach us all verity by the mouth of the Church as Stapleton speaks Then as to the other motive of faith in the true Church namely miracles we can say severall things first in thesi miracles are no certain distinctive of a Divine Commission because the man of sin may deceive by lying wonders as St. Paul speaks 2 Thes 2.9 And also Moses Deut. 13.1 2. Then this is no infallible motive for the believing of a Commission from God because we may be deceived in it And although upon supposition of a true miracle we might conclude a Commission from God yet this is not the way infallible because we may be deceived in the truth of the miracle whether it be such or not since the miracle cannot fidem facere de se as the testimony of the Spirit can Secondly the gift of miracles was a gift common to those who were not all Prophets as to penning of the Scripture and also not common for ought we know to some who did as St. Mark and S. Luke therefore this is not sufficient to resolve our faith in their Commission because not given Omni nor soli for whatsoever doth distinguish must have it self per modum differentiae Thirdly therefore since we must have faith to believe the miracles to be true we ask how we come to this faith if by the operation of the Spirit then faith ultimately is fixed upon our foundation namely the testimony of the Spirit by which we may as well be assured that the Scripture is the true word of God as that miracles are true Fourthly the gift of miracles was temporary and accomodated for that season of the Church And therefore cannot we prove by miracles new Doctrines as Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Communion in one kinde Transubstantiation Supremacy of the Roman Bishop therefore if miracles did infallibly ascertain the divine Commission of the Prophets and Apostles to speak and write yet are not we satisfied by them in the question of new Doctrines which the Scripture gives us no account of but therefore he comes to Oral tradition For as for his reasoning in form thus in hypothesi The Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles therefore the Doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For first not to carp at the form of his syllogism we say to the proposition that if they preached the Doctrine of the Roman Church as differently from the whole Church they preached what they ought not to preach and so the minor proposition is false If they did preach the same doctrine which the whole Church received in Scripture from the Apostles then we grant the minor and the conclusion too as much as doctrine can be confirmed by miracles but we distinguish of the time when the miracles were wrought namely in the time of the Apostles and by them For as for miracles done by S. Austin to confirm the same faith which we abolished in our reformation we say that Bede and Gregory and Brierly whom he quotes for testimony hereof are not to us surely of sufficient authority in their own cause Nay secondly they had best not add the testimony of the learned Magdeburgians lest they be ashamed to slight them in other matters but also chiefly upon this consideration because if the points of difference were confirmed by many miracles which he refers us to Brierly in his Index for then by the Argument before those points of difference were new for as miracles have themselves to faith so new miracles to new faith And if it was a new faith then it was not received by oral tradition from the Apostles successively and then they are undone Therefore let them speak no more to us of the miracles of S. Austin the Monk who shewed nothing so much wonderful as his pride in
or in an higher kind nothing is more credible for this testimony of the Spirit which is not yet disproved makes a thing not only prudently credible but necessarily and in the way of Divine faith And that which is prudently credible doth not include this but this eminently includes that which is prudentiall credibility Yet he goes on Yet here I intreat you to mark how they resolv'd their faith then c. namely in the space of the 200 years and more wherein they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church Ans This I have marked and not precariously But what shall I see in it that will give a sober man any satisfaction For first what if they did believe the soul to be immortall because God said it by the Church and the Church because it said that it had Commission from God is authorized with infallibility and did also believe this because the Church said so and why so because they would do so what of all this therefore we are not infallibly assured that the Scripture is the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit If they did believe indeed in way of a Divine faith then the Spirit of God did assure them by tradition For otherwise they forsake the antient Theological account of faith and they must either say that faith is not an habit infused or that it may be an habit infused without the Spirit of God but if they believed improperly or in the way of humane faith as we doe believe there are seven hills at Rome without universall tradition or a miracle then this is not to the purpose for the discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench we can say as much without contradiction to our cause Secondly they cannot surely expect that we should gratifie them so much as to say there is as much reason to believe tradition now as then because now they themselves will say that we have the benefit of what assurance the general Councils can make And also 3. we must here note out of their own words for the use of our cause that for the space of 200 years and more they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church So then for the same space they had not the coroboration of general Councils and therefore these do not make the reason of belief simply as they would have it because the Church was so long without them 4. Though the universal comprehends particulars yet a particular doth not comprehend an universal therefore whatsoever assent is due to tradition universal is not due to tradition particular of Rome This is their trick to build all upon the common ground of the whole Church and then to inclose the universal Church within the walls of Rome This we must enter our plea against upon all occasions 5. We see they are come off unto some latitude in their conception of faith because the last resolution in this quest of faith they make to be thus and they would do so because they would do so and again because it had been more folly not to accept of this Church's Commission to teach them infallibly all truths So that now the acquiscence of the soul in the deep mistery of faith must be terminated and determined upon rhe variable point and principle of prudence and that which must eternaly setle our mind in the first and last ground of infallibility must be this we do so because we will do so or because it were folly not to believe So then since currente rota the discourse is come to this let us have our liberty to believe as we do believe because we see it to be folly for ought can be seen by them to accept the Church's Commission to teach infallibly all truths Sixthly if they say all truths then they seem to be fallen from their former Concession and also Stapleton's that some truths may be believed without necessity of the Church Seventhly as for the immortality of the soul which they insist in to have been believed because God said it by the Church we say easily that this might with lesse difficulty be received from the Church because it is surely probable and some will say demonstrable by reason and therefore is not only asserted by Plato who might have it from the Jewes by redundance in Aegypt whither he and Pythagoras and some others travelled for wisdom as Justin Martyr witnesseth but also in effect as I think by Aristotle And also here certainly they must be put to distinguish betwixt the Church of Rome and the whole Church or else his words are not true or else Pope John the 22. did not belong to the Church for he did not commend to others the Faith of the Immortality of the Soul And yet he goes on Which Commission to teach them infallibly all truth they knew by tradition to have been ever accepted as Divine by all good people This reason if I may say so is surely full of it self but not solid for it doth in effect run round again and the Faith of the Church is proved by the Church for they make all good people to be convertible with the Church and therefore they make the holy Catholick Church to be the visible But how then is the Church Regula regulata the Rule ruled as hath been confessed before Secondly must we content our selves with this in the grand concernment of faith because the Church did accept this Commission as Divine which we know by Tradition but how shall we know this Tradition to be of the Church before we know the Church Are they advised of this then must we come to be assured of the Doctrine before we be assured of the Church And this Doctrine we must be assured of independently of the Church because we cannot know the Church but by the Doctrine and by the Doctrine of the Scripture too as S. Austin discourseth against the Donatists Thirdly if all good people know by tradition this Commission to be divine then my Adversary needed not to have pinched the last resolution of faith so as to have said they believed because they would do so or because it had been meer folly not to accept this commission for though universal Tradition cannot transcend its sphere unto a causality of proper faith divine yet hath it more reason in it than to make a generall beliefe arbitrary or to preserve the act of it from folly in the negative A Divine assurance will not be compared with a negative prudence but universal tradition doth surpass it We had best then compound the difference betwixt himself by a kind of division thus negative prudence was suitable to his former proof Aqua ascendit quantum descendit but Divine assurance which I suppose he urgeth by tradition is necessary for the question For the certainty of faith is such as cui non potest subesse falsum in which there can be no
good Scripture for none give the terme and afterwards tâ—e signification but the Latin but the name Manna they do not name And whether that be the signification of Manna deserves a criticism Some think that it may come from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it should signifie a portion neither is Bethel interpreted upon the place Gen. 35.15 So then upon the whole matter that which he confidently saies being not so in his own Instances and more my conjecture is yet true and good unless they can make the Latine Translation to be as Catholique Scripture as they would have the Pope to be universal Bishop And surely if a Translator of Scripture doth translate words of Scripture where the words are not interpreted in Scripture he is not a Translator of Scripture quoad hoc formally but materially of that which is Scripture And this is not to render Scripture so much as to make it And moreover they may know this to be the usage of the Evangelists besides which are acknowledged to have written originally in Greek to give the Interpretation of the Hebrew or Syriack words My conjecture then is well recovered of its weakness But then he falls upon me for giving a contradiction to S. Ierom. Though he saith he did see a copie of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes you reject him though all the Fathers Writings extant stand on his side Answ A conjecture of a possibility of the contrary makes no such contradiction which stands betwixt affirmation and negation categorically 2. S. Ierom then hath rather contradicted them if a conjecture be sufficient to a contradiction For can we conceive that there is not room enough for a conjecture that either that Copie which S. Ierom had use of or that which he described which may be as certain as some other may now be extant in the world which contradicts my Adversary 3. If there were an Hebrew Copie it is more than a conjecture it is more than probable that he who translated it into Greek did exactly compare it with the Hebrew whose faithfulness in those times we might better trust than some Romans now And also they know that the Pope may be deceived in point of fact Neither did all the Fathers I suppose see the Hebrew Copie And it would have been enough that none of the Fathers are against it but it is a greater adventure to say all the Fathers stand on that side And also they may know what Father did profess that he did see the remainers of those cells in which the Seventy did translate the Old Testament and who contemns that testimony I think I bear as much respect to the Fathers as some of the Romanists do or more but yet if I should hold with the Romans against the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome was the universal Bishop I should not be blamed for contradicting the Fathers But to his Argument This Copie translateth ergo it is a translation Answ Tâ—e Antecedent begs the question whether it doth translate or not Whatsoever doth interpret doth not translate And therefore here is an Argument for me It doth not translate ergo it is not a Translation And it doth not translate for then the Interpretation must be in the Hebrew which is denied to have been the use of the Hebrews as before especially in the same case where the name is given in the same letters which signifie the interpretation Therefore the Latine doth not translate when it giveth the Interpretation as in the former examples And the other Evangelists are not Translators when they interpret Hebrew or Syriack words So his Argument is for me And so my cause is not lost as to this point since also S. Austin professed in that of his against the Epistle of the Manichean that he would hear Reason against Antiquity at least surely he might do so in matter of fact Your third shift is in place of giving answer to make an objection asking why our Latine Translation was made authentique if the Church had made the Greek authentique Answ Shall I say that my Adversary doth not seem here to know well what shift to make since he carps at my answering by way of question But then they should be better advised than to make such Arguments as they will not be willing to answer an intergatory about in the same matter But he saies passing by some other words which seem too hot for him I know of no body who told you that the Greek Translation was made authentique by the Church I return upon him Was the Greek Translation made authentique or not He is not willing to say it was nor it was not But I press them Was it or was it not If it was not then their Translation was not of authentique Scripture and so again they do not translate but make Scripture If it was made authentique by the Church then what need of two authentique Translations Again if it were not made authentique by the Church then the Church could be without the authentique Gospel of Saint Matthew and yet have enough for salvation and therefore can we be as well without Traditions of the Church because I presume they profess so much reverence to the Gospel of S. Matthew that they will not say that Traditions are more necessary than the Gospel of S. Matthew And if it were made authentique absolutely by the Church we can better believe it by the vertue of Universal Tradition than they can believe their Latine by the authority of the Roman Church And if it be necessary as it is that Translations as such should agree with Originals and the question be which is the Original or where the Original is to be found they are in as great difficulty as we for then they have no certainty of an Original as to this Gospel to make use of for their Translation And if their Latine as to this was a Translation of a Translation we have the better cause in this because we trust rather to the first Translation And if some part of the Church made use of the Septuagints Translation in stead of the Hebrew and the Pen-men of the New Testament made so much use of it also as is confessed by learned men then may we rather make use of the Gospel of Saint Matthew in Greek than they in Latine Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the harmony with other Gospels Ans A great deal he saies to this which I might spare the refutation of upon these reasons First because I compare the harmony of this Gospel to the other Gospels with the credit of the Church therefore do I not make this to be an Argument absolute 2. Because I spoke of the harmony betwixt this and other Gospels and not betwixt this Gospel and other parts of scripture and therefore he playes the Sophister the discourse is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas then he does deny my Argument by compare of it with
vertue and so is their Religion a politique Religion And if a man may proceed prudently in the choice of his Religion then he doth not beleive first and then understand as yet the vulgar Latin reads that text but we must understand first and then beleive Prudence is a Moderatress of actions not a mistress of Faith And how doth Prudence consist with implicite Faith which believes what it doth not know Prudence is a vertue of reason which is contradistinguished to Faith And if we may proceed prudently in the chusing of our Religion then we may well exercise the judgment of discretion in matters of Faith and therefore are not simply bound to take upon trust whatsoever their Church obtrudes He goes on Then you conclude all the force my former Argument hath it hath from Scripture Is not my Argument the better for this Yes If the Argument were grounded in Scripture it were better upon that ground than upon any other but this Argument is not good because it is not taken from Scripture Scripture is the best Argument in Thesi but in Hypothesi it is not well applied We like it well that he goes about to prove the Church by Scripture which is the highest principle But let them not give us such a sense of Scripture which belongs not to their cause unless against it In the next number which he nameth the fourth but then it seems the third is lost by the way he saith I stumble again at the senses of damnable errours Ans No N. 4. For I discourse of it by a Dilemma or disjunctive which will take in either sense but he is not willing to move this stone again therefore he stumbles at it Another Text he builds upon St. Matthew 18.17 N. 5. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a publican or a Heathen Upon this he â—â—mes an argument God Commandeth us to hear the Church and obey her but no kinde of errour little or great can be incurred by following Gods command Ans I am glad he hath any such forme of discourse which would more clearly and handsomely shorten the debate we therefore answer to it passing by all discepiation about the sense of the Church there or the quality of the cause We say then if he understands the major so as that God absolutely universally commandeth us to heare and obey the Church then the conclusion were good and we could not erre in following the Church But so the minor is denied God hath not absolutely and universaly commanded us so to heare and obey the Church If he understands the major specificatively and in things lawfull then we can grant the minor but then the conclusion will not be universall will be peccant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so not conclude contradictorily to us who do not dispute here against all obedience to the Church negatively as if we would have none but against all obedience affirmatively as being not bound in faith to all commands And therefore need he not come in with a reliefe to succour his discourse by saying from me it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour though it be not damnable This true but not well applied to me unles he can prove Gods command for absolute obedience in whatsoever the Church proposeth But as this is true so it is pertinent for me against him that though the universal Church cannot erre in points necessary where errour would be damnative yet could we not be bound universally to follow upon that account because no man can be bound to assent to an errour though not damnative Neither doth it follow from the Text therfore meerely and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held a publican or a Heathen Unles he understands by not hearing not submitting if he doth not understand it so it doth not follow if he does understand it so this is not to his purpose because though we may be bound to submit to the Church yet we may not be bound to believe the Church these are two things which he should have distinguished Therefore cannot he prove from hence that the Church cannot erre He is to be accounted an Heathen or publican upon not submiting to the Church in regard of authority not upon not assenting because of infallibility And therefore though we be all bound simply to avoid excommunication yet if the case were put that we must assent to an errour or else be excommunicated we take the censure and leave the errour and if they will not have proviso with a clave non errante for the censures of the Church then what condition was Pope Honorius in who was excommunicated as before If God binds against errour and the Church as we suppose bind to it we can say presently that the Church cannot absolve without God but God can absolve without the Church And this answereth the next verse in the Gospell as he produceth it But the former Answer he would take off in the next words by an argument To swerve from Gods word is to erre But this Text proveth that the the Church cannot erre Ans The major is indeed true but the Text doth not prove the minor therefore it is false because he saith the text proveth it And indeed if she could the meerely not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to Gods judgment a publican and heathen Ans This is denied Refractorines exposeth thereunto without acknowledgment of infallibility And yet am I still of this opinion that that Text concernes not matters of faith but of trespass betwen Brother and Brother and therefore that Text is not to his purpose This and more he saith nothing to here But yet I followed him and said that a man is not bound to believe the censure is just unles it apeare to be so To this he saies 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 unles the contrary appeares evident Ans first then this determination of the case by Learned men supposeth that a thing may appear evident against the superiours censure or command So that by consequence they have the unanimous opinion of Leanred men against them in two points first that a thing may be evident without the proposal of the Church for it may be evident against it 2. Then that the Church may make an injust censure or command But for his opinion he nameth three Learned men Chillingworth Hooker Laud. So he as to the first Mr. Chillingworth he hath nothing for him in his 108 nu For he maketh use of this rule In cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superiour nor cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees But how is this applied to our case Indeed it was his best course not to apply it Let
them then note that this he speakes is in cases of uncertainty namely about things of question but we are ultimately upon points necessary And then 2. He speaks against casting off obedience but we are upon assent of judgment And then 3. The rule he useth speakes that we should not publiquely oppose his decrees but we are upon the negative only whether he may not suspend his opinion And hence the Author discourseth that we may leave them we may cast them off and oppose them when we are certaine as protestants were that what they command God doth countermand And for the second as he nameth him I think all things considered he hath little from him for his use As the scribe at least mistooke the quotation so the Author I think mistook the man In the places quoted pag. 310. 311. n. 110. there is nothing like It is true that excellent Author had great cause to urge convenent obedience to humane lawes but he denies intuitive obedience to any law but of God And therefore if he and Mr. Chillingworth be joined in the testimony that which answered one may answer the other And further if they will take p. 110. And so on for n. 110. They may finde enough to satisfie them of his opinion that he held Scripture a sufficient rule in matters necessary and therefore the obedience he urgeth must be in thinges of order which is extrinsecall to our debate and not blind neither as p. 110. The third Authority is rightly quoted but not rightly applied out of that excellent book for it speaks expresly of externall obedience we are upon internall He speaks for peace my adversary should apply it to faith He speaks it as to private persons my adversary should vltimately apply it to the Church nationall That which followes is a cavill that then the private man when all comes to all is the last judge to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred Ans The private man is no judge authoritative to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred but exerciseth for himself the judgment of discretion as being to be perswaded in his own minde as the Apostle speaks And thus much must be allowed by my adversary who lately asserted prudence to be of use in chusing Religion Yea if Prudence be tolerated in things of Faith Sapience is to be commended which refers to the highest principles and those are of Scripture And though it be some ingenuous prudence to preferre the judgment of a General Council or the Church as to the suspension of my opinion against them yet surely will it be sapience to rest my faith in principles of faith Therefore this and much more of this discourse comes not home to the question whether God hath bound me to give absolute assent to the definitions of the Church and to believe their commands to be just eo ipso because theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither is it impossible that a General Council should not see it There is a double impossiblity simple and Physical and then Moral The Simple impossiblity would make Faith but such is denied The Moral If it were granted could not make such a Faith as they stand for namely an infallible assent But the Moral impossibility which is no more than a great difficulty is not to be yeilded neither since the Trent Council They might as well not see that which was Evident as they did see that which was not Evident Communion under both kindes was Evident in Scripture and the practise of the Church yet notwithstanding they would see what was not Evident Communion-under one kind And therefore least Communion under both kindes should seem more Evident Bellarmin prudently informes that some of their learned men would not construe the 2. of St. Iohn of Sacramental participation And the ground he goes upon is sandy that which is truly Evident will of it self appear to be so or at least to the most judicious upright and best instructed Prelats of the Church Ans This may appear to them de facto not so Were not the Trent Fathers so And yet they did not see what was Evident in the point of the Communion and in some other points too as some of their own Religion did think as we have it in the History of the Trent Council 2. What a case should the poor people be in since populus non distinguit and yet they must compare the most judicious and most upright and best instructed Prelats Thirdly Take the Fathers of all ages and places and then their Doctrines will not abide the test as hath been made good to them by Bishop Jewel And therefore their Doctrines are not Evident by their own Principle because not Evident to them And then fourthly somewhat Evident to them the Romans have cashiered Infant Communion the Millenary opinion trine immersion standing up in prayer therefore they had best betake themselves to more than humane assistance namely from the Holy Ghost His debate afterwards about the consideration of the cause of the Censure will come to little if it be considered that the act of not hearing the Church is ambiguous and may relate either to the non-assent or to the contempt The former doth not simply expose him to the Censure in Heaven the latter may And if he understood his own terms he must rather take them of the latter because he speaks of an act of not hearing For the non-assent is negative to an act and so is the Greek considerable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is it which makes him truely guilty of not hearing the Church That which follows in way of concession is destructive of his building for he grants an errability of the key in which case the Censure is not ratified in Heaven So then how shall we know whether any be truely guilty For as the Church cannot be infallible to us at all to believe it if not infallible in all as Mr. Knot argues and my Adversary too if he denies the distinction of damnative errours so it cannot bind infallibly in any if not in all though there be a distance betwixt Faith and fact the proportion is the same And yet again if they will divide here by affirming infallibility in Faith fallibility in Fact why do they urge this Text which respects the latter And therefore that which follows And so the Church cannot erre in denouncing excommunication against such a person in dependance upon the premises is as much as to say the Church cannot erre when the key doth not erre Yet it might have erred in sensu divis◠which is sufficient for our purpose because our dispute is upon the point of possibility 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle said It is necessary that that it be while it be yet was it not therefore necessary to be before it was for that destroys the distinction of things contingent from things necessary And therefore what follows hereupon if I should answer he would account necessary to
be answered when it is not At the end of this Section he saith You highly wrong St. Athanasius to say he did not hear the Church Ans I should be very loath to be truely guilty of this and surely if he grants that the Church may be mistaken in the fact he may be mistaken in this Censure which he should have proceeded in secundum allegata et probata I said this St. Athanasius did differ from the rest of the Church when the whole world did groan under Arrianisme So he did not hear the Church as differing in opinion though it is not said that he did not hear the Church as disobeying the Censure Here he supposeth that upon the virtue of former Principles he may conclude of the Church No She cannot erre in an errour not damnable No Let that which was formerly granted be compared with this and we shall conclude the contrary To excommunicate a person who is not to be excommunicated is to erre The Church may excommunicate a person not to be excommunicated Therefore the minor is as good as confessed by him because the Church may be mistaken in the fact Nay he saith it in terms and so there may be an errour in the mistake of the fact He proceeds Hence that common Doctrine of Antiquity that it is not possible to have a just cause of separating from the Church Ans Besides the nullity of this upon the want of a true ground as before he doth misreport the axiom or else he must distinguish of Separating There is no just cause of Schism for the proposition hath in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because if there be a just cause it is not Schism but though every Schism is a Separation every Separation is not Schism Take then separation in specie for Schism so it may be true but a Separation from a Church imposing errours in Faith and things unlawful in practice is not without a just cause and therefore is it not Schism It is not without a just cause by his former confession just now in those words So men should be bound to assent unto an errour which is impossible And again this is to be understood of Separating from the Catholique Church or from a particular Church for that order wherein it agrees with the Catholique But this is not our case for the Roman is but a particular Church and we separated upon Catholique Principles that so we might hold union with the Catholique Church And then again there is a difference betwixt a national reformation and a private Separation And therefore yet the distinction is not disabled namely of separating from the errours and not from the Church unless it were better proved that the Church is secured from all errour which that text doth not prove Then goes he on to take away somewhat I said to the text in my first and fifth answer to it He claps them together and would make me to conclude thus this maketh nothing for the Authority of the universal Church Ans Let them remember again for Aquinas tells us that we cannot forget natural Principles that the whole is greater than the part I allow much to a particular Church in correspondence with the Universal therefore little to their Church And if I do reply that this text belongs also to particular Churches then this doth redound to the honour of the Universal Church And that this doth belong to particular Prelats to excommunicate he himself doth confess in this Section Therefore must he conclude that I conclude for the Universal Church And yet moreover in all this long gloss upon the text how little have we had of that upon which all in this discourse turns namely whether Authority of excommunication be it in the Universal or a particular Church respects not formally the contempt not the non-assent Let them speak less or more to the purpose And yet again he would drive it on in a loose way that we have a command from God to hear the Church absolutely and universally To this purpose he saies Those who disobey the judges disobey the Common-wealth so generally speaking those who disobey the Prelats of the particular Church disobey the universal Church commanding her to proceed according to her Decrees Canons and definitions Ans Here is not much and for them less A Common-wealth is a term ambiguous and may be taken strictly or largely strictly in the form largely as including head and members And in this large sense may be considered with more respect to the Body or to the Head in confuso or in capite If he takes it in the strict sence it is not to any purpose because there is a different reason of laws in the Common-wealth and in the Church For in a Common-wealth so Laws proceed from them as the efficient thereof but in the Church truths and duties do come from God and therefore in such cases the disobedience reflects upon God Now the case we dispute upon is in necessary truths and duties If he understand a Common-wealth largely and then with more particular repute to the people the disobedience to the judges doth not reflect upon them unless objectively and consequently because though they are not their Judges by way of Authority yet they are their Judges in way of End for their good If it be taken with more relation to the head whose judges they are by authoritative commission it is true that the disobedience to the Judge doth redound upon him but here is difference betwixt them for particular Prelats do not depend upon the universal Church as Judges do upon the Head of a Common-wealth because Bishops have their Authority by divine right which was contended for hotly in the Trent Council and had proceeded affirmatively had not the Roman Court bandied against it And then also the matter of disobedience we speak of is from God not the universal Church but the matter of Civil disobedience to the Judge is from the Head And then again we do not speak of disobedience positive which my Adversary doth instance in but in obedience which is negative And then again particular Prelats are not so bound in things of particular order as the people are bound to the Laws of a particular Nation And also then this will redound to the Adversaries prejudice for the particular Prelats of their Church have not proceeded according to the Canons Decrees and definitions of the universal Church as hath been shewed And also this is against them because then my Adversary confesseth that this text under debate is competible fairly to particular Churches and therefore they have no reason to appropriate it to themselves And so upon the whole matter we can say as much in a due respect to the Catholique Church as they do here and yet hold our own So then he doth not contradict here And yet again he is importunate to prove that disobedience to the Church at last redounds to Christ and God out of the 16.
afterwards and take Tradition for the matter of what was written we grant it if but he takes tradition of the primitive Church to be that which was derived to after times and was not written we deny it to be believed upon her sole Authority In the former sense it is true but not pertinent in the latter pertinent but not true And indeed this was the notion of Traditions for the first times namely to be that sâ—â—â—â—e of doctrine which did comprehend the materialls of faith 〈◊〉 to be any thing different from Scripture or diverse 〈…〉 first of the Gal. 8. doth not signifie contra but praeâ—â—â— from Scripture So he will finde Irenaeus to mean it And so St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his 5. Cat. 117. p of the gr last Ed. makes it to be upon account no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the System out of the Holy Scriptures about every of those things conteined And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for things of faith were not composed as it pleased men but the most pertinent things being gathered out of all Scripture do make up the doctrine of faith And again as the seed of mustard in a little grain doth contein many branches so faith it self in few words doth comprehend the knowledge of piety that is in the old and new Testament And what followes but that text which he my adversary named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see therefore Brethren and hold the Traditions So then if he takes Tradition in the first sense the Church was infallible therein by the Apostles if in the second the Tradition was infallibly Scripture and the Church believed it upon that account And that Traditions did not bind either in their own virtue or without Scripture they may see in St. Basil who yet speaks much for them So in the seventh ch of the Holy Ghost where speaking of the controversie whethre they were to say of the Son of God with whome or by whome he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. this is not sufficient to us that it is a Tradition of the Fathers for even they did follow the will of Scripture having taken principles out of testimonies which a little before we proposed to you out of Scripture God therefore said by his Apostles that the Traditions then were infallible being in matter the same with what they wrote for their Authority Now if God said this shall we upon his fallible discourse for even Councils are fallible in their discourse come to say the Church's Traditions are further infallible then agreeable to his word though God never said so and never yet expressed any such infallibility of the Church And thus I return him his own words mutatis mutandis And so my Argument out of Irenaeus is not yet refuted Neither doth he take away my use of Irenaeus testimony in the next paragr For as to my Argument what he saies is not appliable It was thus out of his Authority If the 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 but the Scripture is now left to us therefore no need of certain conveighance of tradition to us This Syllogism he makes no offer of answer to for that which he saies in a Parenthesis though you cannot invent the means by which Tradition should have been conveighed more certainly supposing there had been no Scripture I can receive without prejudice to my Argument for whatsoever Hypothetically should have been done had not there been Scripture yet now since we have Scripture we have no such need of we now dispute upon the fact not against the supposition Therefore from the dint of the ratiocination he digresseth to an observation of disrespect in me to St. Irenaeus because I said Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely onely upon Tradition Ans He is in this deceived To assent to Tradition in the matter of it and not to assent to the matter upon the sole Authority of Tradition are not such opposites as he imagines for they may well agree Therefore though the Father said they did assent to Tradition as to the matter yet not by Tradition as the manner Tradition was the objectum materiale not the objectum formale of their Faith And the next words as he also perhibits the Fathers words do defend my answer having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost So then they were assured of the Doctrine of Salvation by the Holy Ghost then they did not believe that Tradition upon the sole Authority of the Church So this contradicts my Adversary and makes for me not onely by consequence because it is against him but directly for then we can as well be assured of Scripture by the Holy Ghost have no such need then of the authority of the Church as to salvation though the church were infallible which is one of the things to be proved and cannot And yet besides this tradition in the sense of the Father was in the matter of it Scripture and therefore hath no consanguinity with the true state of the question So then we may conclude in the negative they did not rely upon or believe upon the sole account of that very tradition yet if they had it would not conclude against our cause because that tradition is not the same with what belongs to the question To be civil to an Adversary in this number N. 14. all the sense of it may be resolved into this discourse If the radition of the Church testifying her own infallibility in proposing for Gods Word that which she delivereth for Gods word be to be believed then she is to be believed as proposing that to be Gods Word which is not written Ans This hath been abundantly agitated before with our indemnity to the Plaintiffe but since he repeats I do not And we answer First the consequence is not clear especially if we extend it to that which is not grounded in Scripture if he understands it of that which is grounded in Scripture it is not proper to the question As to that which is not grounded in Scripture we may still deny the major Tradition universal of the Church may be worthy of assent as to the truth of Scripture to be the Word of God and not so of that which is delivered beside Scripture which also is held by others against them and the reason is not yet disproved because there was more necessity of the Faith of Scripture than that which is delivered beside Scripture and therefore may we well suppose a greater assistance to the proposing of Scripture than any thing diverse Deus non deficit in necessariis Why do they assert infallible assistance to General Councils not to private Doctors or to a National Council Namely because others are to be directed by the General Councils well then the Church universal might be more assisted for the proposing of
thus whatsoever requires infallible assent must have an infallible Authority Diverss points not proposed clearly in Scripture the Church requires an infallible assent to therefore she must have infallible Authority we answer granting the major which yet they have no reason to urge unless they had more firm Principles that the assumption may be true de facto but not de jure And then again It is yet denied that ever the Church Universal did ever exact this As to the right hereof she must prove her infallibility and Authority too hereunto as to the fact it must be proved by our Adversaries Therefore since I am respondent I may conclude thus Things necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture those points are not plainly set down in Scripture saies he therefore I conclude they are not necessary Here he makes a return to my Argument against him N. 18. that if that must be Judge which can hear him and me and be heard by him and me then Tradition is thus excluded from being the Judge here he distinguisheth It is the Church who proposeth these Traditions and not the Traditions which are our judge Ans This is easily taken away for according to their Principles Tradition must be Judge of the Church If their former Argument be good that we must not ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Scripture because we do not know what is Scripture but by the Church so also we cannot ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Church because we cannot tell which is the Church but by Tradition And if it be Judge of the Scripture in the Canon of it as they must say then surely it may be Judge of the Church because as before by the Fathers opinion the Church must be proved by Scripture Again by Tradition was the Faith of Christian Doctrine bred in the minds of the Barbarian Nations as we have it said before by my Adversary therefore Tradition must be the infallible Judge or else they had not the same Faith which the Roman contends for by an infallible Judge or if they had then there are more infallible Judges or Faith may be had without an infallible Judge or Traditions and the Church are all one and then the distinction is none And yet also this answer of his I did provide for before in these words but you say the Church doth determine hereby by Tradition then may it determin by Scripture more securely and more universally And to this he replies nothing but holds the conclusion From hence he skips to answer me about that which I opposed to his Judge exclusively to any other I urged that of St. Paul that an heretick is condemned by himself namely as I discoursed by the Law of God within him by vertue of Conscience which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemnation of errour in us c. To this he saies he is not an heretick but an infidel who is told by his own Conscience that he gain-saith the Scripture Ans First Then the Scriptures are so clearly the Word of God that an Infidel may be told thereof by his own Conscience If not so then his words have no sense If so then may we see the Scripture to be the Word of God by its own light as the Heathens did the Law of nature and then he contradicts his own former discourse Secondly Saint Paul speaks not of an Infidel but in terminis terminantibus of an heretick who supposeth the Scriptures to be the Word of God though by consequence he denies it in Hypothesie as to the point of heresie So that the Text cannot be so put off And though every Christian is readier to die than to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture yet the heretick who supposeth the Scripture in Thesi and in general may yet deny it in the application against him and for this he is to be rejected because he goeth against his own Principles of Scripture which do condemn his heresie in his own conscience though outwardly he opposeth And he helps his cause no better with another shift When St. Paul wrote those words the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written and until the whole Canon was written your own Doctors grant the Church to have been the infallible judge of controversies Ans If he takes whole so as to be understood in order to the Canon I grant that the whole Canon was not then written but if he takes it in opposition to a sufficient direction by what was then written I deny it there was then as much written as was simply necessary to Salvation for how could St. Paul otherwise say to Tim. That the Scriptures then were able to make him wise unto Salvation thus I distinguish of the former part but then 2. the latter I doe deny that our awn Doctours do say that the Church was the infallible Judge of controversies until the whole Canon of the Scriptures was written for then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Pharises had been infallible No the word of God was infallible when it was not written but not the Church Therefore he mistakes the purport of finishing the Canon which was not ever held by us to cease the infallibility of the Church but to accomplish the matter of Scripture and so it doth exclude verbum non Scriptum Infallibility of the Church was never held but the Canon of Scripture was allwaies sufficient providing allwaies that the Church in this consideration be meant contradistinctly to the writers of Scripture Neither needs he to wonder at my saying that the Church then was not sufficiently formed thereunto namely to a definition of what was to be held therein To this he saies the Church was formed before St Pauls conversion and before his conversion the number of Desciples was multiplied Ans The terme Church is very ambiguous He takes it here of the Church vertual or of the Church representative or of the Church diffusive The Church vertual which the Iesuits say is the Pope was not yet formed The Church Representative as they say in a Council confirmed by the Pope was not yet formed There was no council General till after three hundred yeares nor Pope so soon in their sense A Church diffusive there was but this serves not his turn for we must speake of such a Church formed so that the heretique should be condemned for contradicting the definition of the Church Now the definition of the Church according to my Adversary is by the Church Representative and this was not then formed Then again to take his own words either the Church was not then formed most compleatly with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith or it was Let them now say which they will Then no necessity of Pope and Council yea no necessity of Pope or Council If it was not compleatly formed then my former answer obtains And besides if
the Church visible as the onely subject if it be not then the Text doth not prove absolute infallibility but onely security against damning errours or practice Not that the Church visible is not a mean of that security but therefore not a mean universally infallible but with specification Sixthly you ask how shall ignorant people be divinely perswaded that the Council is General To this he answers by giving us the means or signs of this knowledge First publique Summons Secondly publique appearance of Prelats made upon these summons from all parts of the world Thirdly publick setting publick subscribing publick divulging their Decrees and Definitions acknowledged truly to be theirs by all present denied by no man to be theirs with the least show of probability no more than such an Act is denied to be the Act of such a Parliament Ans Is here all The question was how shall ignorant people be divinely perswaded that the Council is general And now we must be answered with a probability If that which may be known probably be known divinely eo ipso upon that account then a probable Argument may make an infallible conclusion And why then do they urge infallibility of the Church for point of Faith which they can never prove It less would have made Faith they should not in prudence have combated for infallibility But as long as the conclusion follows the worse part and the effect doth not exceed the cause and the assent cannot be higher than the ground of it this answer of his is too short for the question Secondly were not all these necessary conditions of a General Council belonging to the Trent Council And why then was not the French Church perswaded to take it for a General Council Why doth the French Church say transeat concilium Tridentinum Therefore that which he saies is not so that all these motives make it evidently credible to the ignorant and to the learned that this is the true definition of the church It is evidently credible to neither So that though the Definition of the Church were infallible in it self as they say Scriprure is yet is it not infallible to us as they say Scripture is not without the Church Therefore though the Definition were infallible yet cannot they thereby prove the Council infallible but they are first to prove the Council infallible then that which is a true definition of the church will be infallibly true because truly infallible So that he needs not tell us that if we beleive all her Definitions to be true we will also believe this Definition to be true since a particular is included in an universal But before we believe all her Definitions to be true we must demand some infallible assurance that such a Council is truly universal and that an universal Council is truly infallible Otherwise we may believe one Definition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be true and yet because not proposed infallibly we cannot believe all her Definitions to be true And therefore hath he not extricated himself out of insuperable difficulties As for the Hypothesis of the Trent Council which I said was contradicted by the French Catholiques he saies their Definitions concerning Faith were never opposed by France Ans Opposition is formally indeed in contradiction But if they were denied onely it were sufficient to us Do my Adversaries think they may be saved notwithstanding this denial This surely they deny not Well then if they may be saved notwithstanding their denial then we may be saved also though we do not subscribe some definitions of a Church Then we are not bound absolutly under danger of damnation to believe all definitions of the Church Then the Church hath not infallible authority But 2. their withdrawing of their assent must draw in one of these two things either that it was not a General Council and this interpretativi makes a contradiction or that General Councils are not infallible and this in effect makes a contradiction too Yea 3. Did not the King of France write to the Trent Council under the name of a Conventus which they construed in derogation to a General Council As appears in the Trent History And 4. As for the distinction of the definitions concerning faith as if they were not so disliked but some things ordained for practice seemed less suitable to the particular state of that Kingdom This runnes out as it comes in For those things towards practice were ordained by the same Divine authority were they not Or did not the Holy Ghost assist them as to things of practice If not then proper obedience is not due to Councils because proper obedience respects things of practice but indeed the whole Council was rejected in gross and therefore when Cardinal Ossat mediated for the King of France with the Pope and the Cardinal urged the peace for him without the condition of accepting the Trent Council he wrote to the King what the Pope said one morning to him because he would not receive the Council that he had no more rest that night then a damned soule in Ossat's Letters And as to the seventh answer concerning some in the Trent Council who had Titles of Bishops Bishop Iewell affirmes it in his Apol. Par. 6. P. 62.5 and he names St. Robert of Scotland and Mr. Pates of England And the former is named in the Trent History to have been a Bishop of the post if we may say so of him for his ability in riding post so well And if forty Bishops do all agree in the same point of faith as for a good while there were not many more what can be be concluded against a possibility that they might be all sworne servants of the Pope And he that will read the Trent History will finde sufficient cause not to suspect but to believe that Council not to have had due moralities much less infallibility His best way then to secure a Council against irregularities is by the assistance of the Holy Ghost that nothing shall happen destructive of secure direction Ans this is not sufficient that nothing be destructive of secure direction against damnation if he means it now so but against all errour for this he is ingaged to make good by former denying of that distinction of errour damnative and errour not damnative Yet here he seems to warpe in this point 2. The morality of the Synod is antecedent to its infallible assistance Then we must have all defects of legality and proceeding removed before we can be perswaded of its infallibility 3. why did he except against Cajaphas for not being the true High Priest if now Cajaphas may Prophesie not knowing what he doth before the spirit of truth sent to teach the Church all truth shall faile in his duty So then notwithstanding there be not a legall High Priest the spirit of God shall infallibly act the Council as he did the Apostles But here is a double duty for them first that the spirit of God
Authors And if some of theirs have professed to take testimonies upon his credit because they had not Books by them I may be easily excused for asking the question whether the Bishop of Bitonto did not say so and so in the Council of Trent He that asks a question seems to be wary of asserting And if the opinion of one able Doctor be sufficient to make a point probable as some of them have lately said this point of fact is not altogether unprovided of some hope of probability My Author is Bishop Iewel who speaks it more than once in his Apology Neither have they cause to bragge that their Church have been the men who were still imployed in the upholding the Authority of Councils Surely my Adversaries did pass by Cajetan and Bellarmin and Valentia and did not take notice of what they have said towards fallibility of Councils even lawful that so infallibility and Monarchy might be necessarily devolved from heaven as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Pope's lap All that make perstriction of the Authority of Councils are not hereticks it seems because some that are good Roman Catholicks do speak of their fallibility so that this infallibility should be intailed upon the Bishop universal And so they differ from my Adversaries platforme of infallible direction In this he shewes himself highly displeased for offering to compare the Determinations of Trent with the word of God He thinkes it fine doctrine that determinations of Councils should be examined by such as I and he is Ans it is halfe an argument for us that they are angry at this But first we do not speak of an Authoritative examination which is forensical but a rational inquiry which is for private satisfaction 2. If the Decrees of that Council be indeed infallible they will abide the test if not how can we believe them Do they think 3. That we are more bound to believe the council of Trent then the Beraeans were bound to believe what was said by St. Paul without discussing since specially they are pleased in the Trent Council somtimes to joyn St. Paul as partner with St. Peter in the honour of their Church 3. We may surely finde more cause to examine the Trent Council then some others since it hath not yet obteined in the Christian world the reputation of a lawful General Council therefore though we doe not examin others yet this we may 4. would they not have us preferre the doctrin of Trent before any differing from it yes surely then we must inquire into it and privately judge it otherwise we make a blind choice Fifthly If the consent of the major part which is most immediatly considerable in a Council should morally bind why should we not as well believe the Council of Ariminum since what else he hath pretended against it is not cogent Sixthly If they think that one cannot think well of a lawful General Council unless he believes their infallibility that proposition is easily denied They may be fallible and yet not faulted by me in piety or prudence Infallible conclusions do not follow upon moral principles The one makes them careful the other faithful but though they do not deceive me they may be deceived themselves And if their infallibility did depend upon their piety and prudence how are we infallibly certain of that upon which their infallibility should be grounded Nor does my consideration of a Council betray in me a want of charity or humility as he supposeth they have themselves as Disparates to Theological Faith and are not of the same Conjugation Humility disposeth me to think of my self meanly Charity disposeth me to think better of others because I know my own imperfections and do not know anothers perfections as Aquinas notes But if these were dispositive unto Faith yet not causal If causal of Faith yet of Faith humane not divine unless I did see Gods Word for believing men This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they can prove this we have no more to say Until then I can love my Adversaries and think humbly of my self And yet cannot be perswaded that my Adversaries are infallible And if they were infallible in the dispute how should infallibility be the prerogative of the Council confirmed by the Pope So then as long as I can give reverence to a Council without present Faith I am not posed but they who must beg the question In this he chargeth me with shifting because I said now let us not see the opinions by infallibility but the infallibility by your determinations whereas else where I say you should go a priori and shew that your Church is infallible and therefore her definitions to be admitted This in effect he supposeth to be my shift to evade his pressure of me Ans No such matter Good cause for both distinguish reasons and respects First I hope they think it lawful to urge both waies in a different kind of discourse we demonstrate the effect by the cause we know the cause by the effect Secondly The way a Priori is more distinct and therefore this would presently make an end of the controversie if it could be effected because it satisfies us in the cause Prove the infallibility and then we fall down or rise up to the definitions They are then to be taken ipso facto and they produce Faith ex opere operato as we may speak This the way of nature But when they cannot make this good then the other way and quoad nos is to shew us their infallibility by their determinations and an easie way it is to us to shew them the unlikeliness of infallibility by their determinations For it is sufficient to the negative of infallibility to find one errour in any of their definitions but it is not sufficient to them for the affirmative of infallibility to prove that the Church hath not erred in some particular definitions The latitude of the power is not discharged by some acts Quem saepe transit casus aliquando invent If it hath erred but once we are sure it can erre then infallibility is destroyed if it hath not erred in some yet it doth not follow that it hath not erred in others Yea if it hath erred in none we cannot ex vi formae conclude infallibility unless it be proved that the power of erring is bound in the Church Representative as the Schoolmen say the power of sinning is bound in the Church Triumphant Thirdly We are now upon the Hypothesis incidently and so it is very reasonable for us to go this way with them because a particular Church hath not the priviledges of the universal Church It is generally supposed that the universal Church cannot erre in things necessary but this is not granted to any Church of one denomination Now the Trent Council belongs to a particular Church and therefore as to that our way of proceeding is not irrational And therefore all that he saies upon this argument comes to
Church all he saies is nothing against so much use of it as I made For I do not argue so because there are such Ebraisms therefore this is to be so expounded we say it follows not as to an actual necessity of such an interpretation No but thus it will follow there are such Hebrew formes of prefacing therefore this may be so interpreted Now the possibility of such an exposition is sufficient to my purpose For possibility of the Contrary stops the mouth of infallibility If this or that be infallible it is not possible to be any other way but the sense may be otherwise therefore this is not the infallible sense so we agree with Dr. Taylor whom he quotes because the Doctor may deny the argumentation as quoad esse we intend it sufficiently quoad posse It may be otherwise expounded than they say therefore cannot we hereby infallibly know this infallibility of the Church Suppose the Church were infallible yet if we did not infallibly know so much we cannot make the Church our ground of Faith Nor could there be any consistence of their implicit Faith if they did not know infallibly that whatsoever the Church propounds is infallible And an exception against this interpretation is that it is new unheard of to all Antiquity and unto all men unto this age Ans This exception would have come better from some other since my adversary had no minde to answer me to some Authority of the Antient. It were worth the while to quit the Criticism upon condition they would hold to antiquity But whose saying was that Omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic And yet neither is this a sufficient answer unless the consent of the Fathers could make a conclusion to be of faith So then as the Florentine said of vertue that the shew of it is profitable but the practice not so also may it be said of the Italians that the shew of antiquity is of use to them but the thing not but also it will be too hard for every one of them to prove a negative neither were many of the Fathers Learned in the Hebrew tongue He goes on whether this infallibility be equall to that of the Apostles or not maketh not to our purpose Ans Surely infallibility never took any degrees with their Doctours It is not receptive of magis minus therefore if he asserts not an equall infallibility he asserts none less in infallibility is less then infallibility So then their Church now is not such as to rely upon equally to the Authority of the Apostles therefore it must be subordinate to Apostolical authority which indeed was in effect confessed before in that he granted that the Church was regula regulata And this is as much as the cause is worth He saies I note him in a Parenthesis for a French Catholicke for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a Council Ans No. He or his scribe is much mistaken I asked him whether he had a minde to the opinion of the French Catholick because he in one place spake of the infallible assistance of the Church without any mention of the Pope Now if he did on purpose leave out the Pope in his account of infallibility then he is like to be a French Catholick And although all Romane Catholicks allow infallibility to a Pope defining with a Council cumulative yet all Roman Catholicks do not allow infallibility to the Pope only then when he defines with a Council As some Catholicks do allow full Authority to a Council without a Pope so some Catholicks allow infallible Authority to a Pope without a Council And this is more then I needed to have said to him that sales in this paragraph so little to me Yet he will charge me with charging him with an opinion which brings him within perill of blasphemy His opinion was this God gives as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Council as he gave to him who did deliver his word in Scripture My reason was this for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as infallibly by his Church as in his word He denies the inference I maintain the charge more pressely thus He that inferres no need of Scripture comes within perill of blasphemie He that saies such words as before infers no need of Scripture Therefore To the major in effect he hath said nothing his discourse is bent against the matter of the minor and he would deny it by severall instances which come not up to the case in hand First because he speaks infallibly by the Church of the Law of nature for two thousand yeares And why more blasphemy now To this in the matter of it we have spoken before As applied here we shall answer to it now First he did not then speak infallibly by his Church if the termes by his Church be meant reduplicatively to whatsoever was said by his Church if it be understood thus that whatsoever truth was proposed by God was proposed by the Church it may be more easily granted In the former sense the reason were good if it were true in the latter it may be supposed true yet it is not sufficient to his use who urgeth that nothing is proposed by the Church but that which is true and from God Yea 2. it cannot be absolutly granted in the second sense if we take the Church to have spoken from God in any way of a Council for much truth of what was proposed came to some of them by way of prophecy 3. The termes God speak infallibly by his Church may relate more strictly to the Agent or to the Instrument God spake infallibly whatsoever he spake by them but God did not speak infallibly by them whatsoever they said Or thus the words are true hypothetically if God spake he spake infallibly by them for he cannot speak otherwise but that whatsoever they said was spoken to them infallibly by God is a question Yea 4. Will they think that there is as much reason for infallible speaking by the Church when the Scripture Canon is compleated as when there was none As to Gods speaking by Moses we have spoken to it lastly As to Gods speaking to some Gentiles by the Church that was not ordinary and therefore it fits not our case neither can they prove that the faith of the Gentiles was not wrought in them by the efficiencie of the spirit of God notwithstanding they had the object of their faith from the Church Neither is it now the same case of teaching us infallibly by the Church as at the time when the Apostles did write because the Christian Church was then to be settled upon the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul speaks and now the building can stand upon that foundation therefore were they extraordinary officers and lasted but for a time And yet if they can prove that their Church-doctrine is no other then that which was
buckler it is enough to us that he cannot or does not prove it But then 2. He is wanting in another thing because he doth not produce his reasons against our reasons let them draw the Sword and cut the knots if they cannot unty them Let them bring forth their strong reasons as the Prophet speakes When as then he saies bring against my illimited Text another Text limiting we say that the cause and our office is upon the negative until he brings another Text for his sense or gives reason for it or gives us the consent of all ages of the Church we have nothing more to thinke besides what hath been said then that he had reason to say more then what follows the necessity of the people which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infalliblity was greater in ages remoter from Christ But this was answered to by retortion that then Traditions it seemes now are not to be accounted equally certain And he answers now that which he had better have kept in He saies now it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles was crucified did rise again then it was presently after these thinges happened yet all these things be as infallibly true now as they were then and as infallible so I say of traditions which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty Ans Traditions then were but equall to Scripture Traditions now are not equall to Traditions then Therefore they are not now equall to Scripture And this spoyles their Traditions and contradicts the Trent Council which determins that they are to be received Pari pietatis affectu And so hath he lost his hold of Traditions by his own words Neither will it save him to say that they are now as infallible as then in themselves but not to us for so is the Scripture infallible in it self without the Church as they confess but it doth not so appear to us they say 2. They are to make good if they can degrees of infallible assistance by the least degree of infallibility But to goe on what if there be no such necessity c. Ans He seemes to be towards a punctum reflexionis here well if there be no such necessity of equall assistance then my answer to such Texts is the better And then let them take the rule which their own do use Deus non deficit in necessaris nec abundat in superfluis God doth not abound in things superfluous nor is wanting in things necessary But then also if it be not necessary why have my adversaries so much pleaded the necessity of an infallible judge Indeed it might be if God had pleased and yet not necessary by necessity of consequent but they are wont to prove it to be because it is necessary He goes on Did not the Church alone serve to decide all controversies before the Scripture was written c. We answer as often before The Church is not thence concluded infallible put it into forme that which decides all controversies is infallible the Church before Scripture was written did decide all controversies Therefore it is infallible No. We first deny the proposition That which decides all controversies decides them infallibly does not follow This cannot be proved less will not serve them Then 2. To the assumption we can deny it it did not decide all controversies put case it did decide all necessary controversies yet not all controversies And we must have a judge they say to decide all controversies whatsoever And 3. If the Church then before Scripture was written did decide all controversies whatsoever then surely there is not that assistance infallible now given to the Roman Church because notwithstanding they have the Scripture and Traditions yet they cannot decide all controversies If they can they are not faithfull and then that of St. Cyprian is not due to them now that perfidia non potest habere accessum If they cannot where is the equall assistance and then also what was decided by the Church was decided by the Scripture in the substance of it though not then written so that he had no cause to contradistinguish this decision of the controversies to the use of Scripture Again he saies did not the old Scripture testifie as much as was necessary that Iesus Christ was the true Messias Yes to what end then was Iohn Baptist sent to testifie this Ans First if the old Scripture did sufficiently testifie of the Messias then that which I have said concerning the sufficiency of the whole Canon is surely sufficient if it did not sufficiently testifie then his argument is none 2. There is not par ratio for the adding infallibility to the Church after the Canon is consigned as for St. Iohns testimony notwithstanding the old Scripture More might be requisit for the settling of the Primitive Church then after because the Church after was to be grounded in the Primitive But he saies there is as good reason In ages after the first when the Church should grow from a grain of mustard seed c. This proves nothing unless there might arise such a controversie which could not upon Salvation be decided without an infallible Judge Let them prove this and they will say somthing If not this will not be to the purpose that several controversies in such a space might arise And would not the same number of necessary points material and formal serve as many more thousands of Christians And those controversies which he names we have spoken to nay when they have as they suppose an infallible Judge are all controversies ended Let them bethink themselves what differences amongst them are yet dependent as before We waite therefore for the proof of such a promise of assistance extended to infallibility for other ages of the Church It is not enough for him to say why might not Christ for any thing you know thinke this a sufficient reason A posse in the premises will not make an actuality in the conclusion 2. there is a difference betwixt a reason after the thing is apparent and a reason to prove the thing to be if they can soundly prove to us that there is such an assistance given in promise to the Church in all ages then we should sooner be induced to the acknowledgment of his reason But there is nothing in the reason till the reason prove the thing 3. If words in Scripture were to be taken allwaies simply according to the termes what need would there then be of an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture Therefore let them chuse which they will do whether they will allwaies have Scripture meant according to the uppermost import of the letter if so then the sense of Scripture is plain which they have denied if not then may they admit a limitation of that assistance spoken of Matthew 28.3 This forme of modality why might not should not one would think become the high mode of infallible assistance
Apostasie or Heresie or nothing it cannot fall but into errour it may fall To be sure this is the surest way unles they had beter arguments against every errour whatsoever or better answers for the arguments against them Nevertheless we must attend his Syllogism all this time all the visible guides or Praelats of the Church were lead and did leade into opinions contrary to the texts of your Church but all this time the spirit of truth did abide with them guiding them into all truth therefore the opinions contrary to your Church were true and not errours Well not to trouble them as to strictnes of forme To the proposition we can say that if they intend it of all the times from the Apostles we utterly deny it if they mean it of the times after the first six hundred yeares of the Church then we grant the proposition but utterly deny the assumption they were not guided by the spirit into such a Latin Edition into halfe communion And this denies his proof that those opinions were true because they were led into them by the Holy Spirit This is denied and is the question And it is more easily said that the Holy Spirit was with us by common assistance unto our opinions then with them by infallible assistance unto their opinions If we are to Judge of their assistance by the effects we had need of infallible assistance if it were convenient for the discourse to conclude for them but I am sure we have no need of infallible assistance to conclude against them Neither is it any boot to them that the Spirit leads all into truth for this may be limited to saving truth And this is not sufficient for them who must have absolute infallibility or none And then all may be limited as that proposition God will have all men to be saved is limited by Aquinas out of St. Austin by the like such a School-Master teacheth all in the Town whereof the sense is this not that he teacheth every own simply but all that are taught are taught by him So the Spirit all leads that are led but all simply are not led The limitation then in regard of the object of the Person or in regard of the object of the thing cuts off all their provision from hence And when we have sufficiently refuted their points of difference we have no need to say any thing that the Holy Spirit should teach contradictions if he were with them and us too for first infallible assistance is asserted to neither but denied and common assistance doth not exclude all errour and then 2. The Holy Spirit was not with them infallibly by the effect for since the same Spirit doth not teach contradictions he did not infallibly teach them that which is oposite to Scripture which he did teach That which followes in compare of the visibility of their Teachers with ours or any other Churches is but a meer flourish Shew me a succession in all ages of the Guides and lawfull Pastours of any Church holding your Tenets in points differing from ours Ans Succession de se is like number of no value Therefore they must prove their doctrine to be right otherwise it will be a succession of errour for as he said Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris 2. It is accidentall to a true particular Church to have succession and the Church at first was true antecedently to the succession and so the former times must never have been certain of their being right because a Persecution might afterwards have interrupted their succession 3. The Heretickes bragged of their sucession too therefore this is no proper special distinctive argument 4. Where is their succession of universal Bishops for the first six hundred yeares Then where is their Church Then either let them not give or take that argument 5. Our opinions to them are negative then they are to shew a positive succession in the doctrin of those points which they can never do unless by their infallibility post-nate antiquity should be as good as Primitive For as for the Fathers of the purest times tam sunt omnes nostri quam D. Augustinus I am sure we may better say so then Campian 6. We can shew our doctrine by Scripture let them shew theirs without it And whatsoever is according to Scripture is true this they deny not our doctrine is yet made good to be according to Scripture therefore the Charter of our points we have the Records of in Scripture and this way is good enough for us which is a posteriori And yet also we can tell them that if it had not been for their cruelty and domination we might better have returned them that which St. Austin said to the Donatists vos tam pauci tam novi tam turbulenti And God hath left us in all ages of greeks and others who have given us occasion to say we hold nothing in the points of difference but was held before Therefore this argument doth not succeed so that they must still labour to find a reason why our doctrine should not be as good as theirs N. 31. The sense of this Section we have had before And it falls into such a Syllogism whatsoever was Gods end in giving of Pastours is allwaies compassed That the Church should be without errour and should not be as Chidren wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine was Gods end Ephes 4.12 Ans Whatsoever was Gods end is allwaies compassed so farr as it was his end where the effect depends not also upon morall causes take it so and we grant the major and deny the minor it was not Gods end that the Church should be without all errour whatsoever and the effect doth depend upon moral causes which may hinder the success The end of the Sacraments in the time of the Gospel they will say was to conferr grace ex opere operato yet they say they have not that effect Ponentibus obicem Or thus whatsoever is Gods end in his will of purpose that shall surely be compassed but what is his end in the will of sign is not allwaies compassed take it then in the latter sense so I deny the major take it in the former sense so I deny his minor For this would be more unreasonable by their doctrine for if God should work omnipotently to secure men from errour by meanes how should the obedience of faith be brought under freedome of will 2. This respects also particular Churches and therefore will not serve their turne who though they make but a particular Church yet are wont to challenge the privileges of the universal 3. This Text speakes nothing of the power of Iurisdiction but of the power of order now the duty of our obedience beats respect formally to Authority and Iurisdiction or do they like some of Geneva divide Pastours and Teachers And then do they think that the ordinary Pastour is here principally aimed at in their extraordinary
either abstractly from the speaker or complexely with the speaker in the former it is considered with respect to the matter and so he said well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are not to look at so much the author as the matter in the latter respect it is respective to the motive and so I am more induced by the Church though not determined And therfore as to those termes to whose saying you would give an infallible assent when you see that which he saith to be conformable to Scripture we say that the termâ— saying is distinguishable into the object purely or into the object with the act and authour In the former there is no difference in the latter there is we may believe that which is said when we do not believe him that saies it And so may we believe rather the Church whose office it is to propose truth as he confesseth it is not the Divells Neither did we by these answers smother up any thing which clearly overthroweth our replie who say we must follow the Church onely so far as we see her follow Scripture That which he saith here doth no way weaken our replie It hath been answered before and the strength of it broken For first though they could not see at all how far the Church followed the Scripture for the first two thousand years and the barbarous Nations never having seen the Scripture did truely believe doth this hinder us from holding now that we are to believe the Church in points of faith no further then we see grounds for what they said out of Scripture take it of faith divine and in things of faith it is yet good And their instances do not evacuate it Distingue tempora distinguish the times God might in that time and season of immediate revelation work then a faith immediately which now is not reasonable to expect ordinarily as appears by the first Chap. of the Ep. to the Hebrews the first ver Privilegia paucâ—rum non faciunt regulam communem Secondly the Faith of the barbarous nations was not terminated in the Church as if they had believed the Church and therefore believed that which was said by them But was terminated in the matter which was said by the Church The Church was instrumental to the knowledge of the matter and might be instrumental as to dispose them for faith But the authority of the Church was not the formal cause of the act of faith And Knotts himself is loath to assert it And this is that which Tertullian hath said non ex persona fides sed ex fide persona aestimanda est We are not to esteem the doctrine by the person but the person by the doctrine And the tradition which St. Irenaeus speaks of was the sum of the Christian Faith which is in Scripture So he as before and so St. Cyril of Hierusalem vnderstands it as may appear by that of Cyril in his fourth Catech. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not deliver any thing in the divine and holy mysteries of faith without the divine Scriptures This is the Epilogue of the Chap. and is of use onely to tell me what he hath done I think not done before N. 38. and this is all the answer he gives me for taking away what he had said out of two places of Scripture forementioned towards infallibility Before he referred me for satisfaction to the due place here he referrs me back again And as for any reply to my answer out of the Fathers or my use of them he saies to me you know why I resolve to pass them Yes particularly why he saies nothing more to what I said about St. Austins testimony in his Epistle against the Manichee If I may be interpreter it is thus resolved he had good reason to pass them because they pass him And so we have made an end of his long but not hard Chapter CHAP. V. No Church is our Iudge infallible then not the Roman This Chapter which concerns the Hypothesis should injustice have been longer but he reduceth the proof of it to a small pittance and if all the Churches which submit not themselves to the Bishop of Rome as their supreme Pastour be of no better proportion it will be Catholick for all that do submit but not for all But since he is so short in this we will be even with him and bring all he saies in this second Treatise for so some times he calles it into one Syllogism the Church is the Judge infallible appointed in businesses of Religion No other but the Roman is this Church therefore To the proposition we have said enough before He would now make good the assumption or praesumption as we might speak supposing the proposition to be demonstrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he quarrels with me because we except against his supsition of it It is true had the major been a maxim irrefragable then there had been more reason to blame us for exception against it and for not applying our selves in present address to the minor but since we see no cause nor the Churches of God why the proposition should be swallowed we call upon him to make good the thesis that there is a Church appointed as infallible Judge in businesses of Religion and therefore we told him that he might as well prove he had right to Utopia because he only claimes it whereas he should first prove the An sit whether there be such a place And therefore if he would have had us say nothing to the questioning of the supposition he should have made it stronger first and then should not have concluded bravingly that therefore all he had said of the Church was to be applied to the Roman no other being infallible as in the former treatise num 28 Well but he must prove his minor N. 2. because all other Churches do not lay claime to this infallibility and are demonstrated to be fallible we grant the Antecedent without any proof and his proof was not so good as his proposition But therefore it belongs to them to be infallible we deny the consequence We deny the Title upon the claime And he is angry because we make his plea from the claim to be weak And the weaknes of it appeares in that it is weaker grounded upon a true supposition nor is it very sound in the proceeding of the consequence in the first regard we say debile fundamentum fallit opus And therefore since that is one of his principles his conclusion must be naught as before His consequence he proveth thus the Protestant Chucrh and all other Churches different from the Roman do Iudge themselves acknowledge themselves declare and profess themselves to be fallible and that according to infallible Scripture If then any of these Churches be infallible in what they Iudge and declare for truth grounded in Scripture they are infallible in this their Iudging and declaring themselves to be fallible therefore infallibly they
falsity and therefore probability cannot make faith and negative prudence can amount no higher than probability Fourthly if we must now set the basis and the foundation of all Divine faith in universal tradition then Mr. Chillingworth carries the victory clearly from the Romanist for this he disputed for in opposition to the Roman Fifthly All good people cannot make a demonstration or faith of a Conclusion And we have cause to note this as invalid because if goodness of manners were simply probative of true faith then we should be all nought in the Roman opinion because we differ with them in faith for if we had been all good people we should have accepted their grounds and hence we see their pretended reason of uncharitableness to us wherein they communicate with Sects or Sects with them But if goodness of life be so profitable for proof of truth then my Adversary with the rest of the Pontificians do not so wisely distinguish betwixt morality and infallibility in their Popes For surely then Gregory the seventh had been no good head of the Church nor Alexander the sixth who surely laughed in his sleeve when he said to an Ambassadour Quantum lucri nobis peperitilla fabula de Christo I had thought goodnesse had not belonged to a professor of Divinity as such Indeed it becoms all Scholars to be very good but this is one of the first times that I heard of this argument Let them therefore put in some formall principle of discerning truth as goodness is not unless the will can prescribe to the judgement as the judgement to the will and if it can they have the worse cause Therefore may we conclude this long Paragraph with a sober denial of what he concludes it with the ground upon which you believe Scripture to be the word of God is thought to be Chimaerical by some of your best Writers It is proved otherwise and that it is not accounted foolish or Chimerical by some of the best of our Writers we have seen before neither Mr. Hooker nor Mr. Chillingworth nay nor by some of their best Writers neither as Stapleton besides some others quoted by Dr. White as before But if he would stand to St. Austin he might have spared this dispute about Scripture for we are not to dispute the truth of Scripture he says as of other writings To conclude then this number in kind we might as well take the boldnesse to say that their ground upon which they stand in the maintenance of their faith as different from us is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Lion before a Dragon behind and a Chimera in the middle In this number he urgeth unsecurity of our grounding faith as to the ignorant in translations Num. 34. but this hath been by him pressed before and by me answered and nothing is here replied by him but somewhat more is promised ch 4. n. 9. And therefore might we skip it but it may be he would interpret our omission to his advantage He says then How unsecurely the greater part of your Religion did ground their faith because they must trust the translations of private men and believe them rather and use them rather than the translations used by the Church in Generall Councils Ecce iterum Crispinus but we answer in this he would have three propositions granted him one that Generall Councils did use their Latine translation Secondly that our translations are the off-spring of private men Thirdly that most of us must ground their faith in the trust of private mens translations To these we answer in three words and in generall denying all of them As to the first we say that the General Councils which were celebrated in Greece did not surely make use of the Latine translation Nay secondly their Latine translation which they would have to be Jerom's for antiquity was not at first received in the Church but denied by St. Austin Yea thirdly their Latine translation which now they use cannot be St. Jerom's for I hope it was mended by Sixtus Quintus and again refined by Clement the eighth and surely though it was Canonized by the Trent Council before it was made yet surely it was not made currant in the Church for use before it was born And if they say there is no reall and materiall difference betwixt their Latine as now and in antient times we say first absolutely that Isider Clarius who came after Clement will then find fault with both in severall thousand places But then also we say in compare neither are there any reall and materiall differences in our English from the original But fourthly did the Generall Councils use the Latine translation for their Judge in Scripture then are not the Generall Councils infallible because that translation was not infallibly made nor made infallible by the Church even in the Trent Council as some of their own have intimated as before To the second proposition we give also a denial Our English translation is not to be accounted the translation of private men because it is authorized by our Church although at first made by private men And what if they yet made good to hinder as great an assistance of the spirit of God to the establishment of this Translation as they finde for their Remish Testament That which is made by private men is made more than private by authority of the Church And if they deny this distinction they undo all their Councils And if they say our Church hath it self as a private part to the whole so we say doth the Roman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly As to the third proposition we deny it also the most do not trust in the Translations nay none do trust in Translations simply because they are not Scripture as per se but analogically to the Scripture in the originall So that ultimately they are assured that the translation is in the matter agreeable to Scripture as they are assured that the Scripture is the word of God namely through faith infused by the Spirit of God So they do not believe the Translation but that which is translated The Translation formally is no mean to assure their Faith but is a mean of conveyance of it to their knowledge And surely our people may as well believe that the Translation is as free from all damnative error as their people may believe what their Church proposeth to be free from damnative error first because they rely upon a Translation that teach and a Translation not so good Secondly because our people can consult the Translation so cannot their people understand the Vulgar Latine and therefore if those who translated it were not deceived yet those who propose it may deceive the people and thirdly because the authority of their Translation were far greater yet was it made by those Priests of theirs deeply interessed in this cause as well as he saies our might be by private Ministers deeply interessed in this cause and also because yet is
not their Translation infallible as hath been proved and therefore cannot the people believe the Church And the Argument is thus If the Church of Rome were infallible then in the Translation of the Bible and the reason of the consequence is demonstrated from the end of it appointed in the fourth session of the Trent Council Vt in publicis lectionibus disputationibus praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur this the end of the institution of it that in all readings disputations preachings and expositions it should be held for authentick and therefore if ever they would put out all their power of infallibility then surely in this translation but now falsum posterius this translation is not infallible as hath been proved and confessed by some of their learnedst men as also might be instanced in the reading of ipsa for ipsum attributing that to the Virgin which all the translation with the Hebrew in our great Bible attribute to the Seed namely to Christ Gen. 3.15 Therefore may we surely as well believe our translations as they their Church Therefore let them hereafter not send us such arguments as will be returnable with use This thirty fifth Paragraph he might also have forborn wherein he thought to pinch me with uncertainty of true copies of the original For this will fall upon them in the full weight for we have as good Copies of the Originals as the Romans If we had ours from them then I hope we have as good if not then we depended not at first of them Whether we believe the Copies we have to be true by the Church this question hath it self accidentally to the truth of the Copies because if we have not the true Copies the Church cannot make that which is not true to be true as the Papists themselves confesse and if we be led by that faith which is certain though we are not so assured of it to be so we may attain Salvation may we not If not then have the Papists no such reason to pick a quarrel with us about certainty of Salvation in the Subject To speak then more punctually we can use the Roman Copies if we had none other without their infalibility Utile per inutile non vitiatur and if we have any others as it should seem we have upon the true account of the antiquity of the British Churches then we comparing them with theirs can find that ours are true Originals if theirs be For as for the knowledge of them to be undoubtedly true Originals by the credit of the best Churches this cannot rationally do it because if there be a doubt of the true Originals we must first know which is the best Church by the true Original Therefore let them tell us which Church is best to be trusted in this case they will say the best but the question returns which is the best This we must know by the true Original and this is it which is in question so that we must be primarily assured some other way either of the Church or of the true Original and what way can that be but by the testimony of the Spirit by whom all Faith is ingenerated and then they come about again to us in genere either to be assured by the Holy Ghost that this is the best Church or that this is the true Original If the latter then by this we are assured of Scripture if the former then however the last resolution is by the Spirit of God This in general concerning the true Originals He descends to the original of the Old Testament as for the Hebrew all must know that the antient Hebrew Copies were all written without points that is in substance without vowels Answ If the Romans could determine all controversies by supposition as they do this they then indeed might pretend to be Judges of all controversies he might have considered that this hath been a mighty question as appears by the discourse about it on each part of the contradiction And as to this they are wrapped into as great difficulty as we untill they can prove two points First that their Church put the Points or Vowells Puncta vocalia to the words Secondly that their Church did it infallibly for though the Church did it yet if theirs be not the Church they are never the whit the nearer and if theirs be the Church and they did it not infallibly they are not yet Masters of their end Secondly we except against his presumption of all Copies to be written without points there is not the same probability as some learned men will think because though ordinarily the words were not pointed with Vowels in every Copy yet the Kings Copy had Points to it And thirdly Do they think that the Moral Law was written by the Finger of God without Points If not then they knew commonly what Vowels should be put without the Church for the Church did not put the points thereunto as the Pontificians think and if the Decalogue had Points put to it by the Finger of God then All not without Points and why not the rest of the old Testament with points Fourthly Let any of my Adversaries say Shibboleth and if he doth pronounce it right let him tell me how he knows he doth pronounce right he will say by tradition well then yet he doth not know it by the credit of a particular Church but let him tell me how at first this came to be pronounced by the Gileadite and not Sibboleth as by the Ephramite Judges the 12 If then they knew that the Punctum samin was right why did not the Jews know a pari the other points Fiftly Though the points were put to the Consonants afterwards yet is it not necessary that the Epach hereof should be 476 years after Christ at the well of Tilerias as Bellarmin would have it For he himself saies That some thinks the Points were put to the Pentateuch by Moses or by some excellent Doctor of the Law before the time of Christ it may be Ezra as some may think Sixtly If the Jewish Rabbies did fit vowels to the Hebrew Letters yet surely did they not put false Points to corrupt the Text because then surely they would have corrupted the Text in those places which speak of the Messiah to be such as Jesus was which being not done Bellarmin takes it to be an Argument that they did not corrupt the Scripture in his 2. b. de verbo dei 2. chap. And therefore as for that famous Text in this kind Psal 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bellarmine saith That it is evidently inferred that it was an error of the Scribe in the same Chapter because St. Jerom who did profess that he did render the Hebrew strictly renders it foderunt Therefore however the controversie goes betwixt Buxtorfiui and Capellus what can from hence be concluded which concerns us in specie Let Bll be Bill or Bell or Ball
locall Praelats will not allow the use of Translations but to them whom they are secure of not to change their Religion which is as much much as to blinde them and then to give them leave to see Further use of Scripture is not an abuse unles the Antient Fathers exhorted the people in the reading of Scriptures to an abuse and he was much mistaken in the saying that we see the sad effects of it it is a fallacy of accident Our Ministers are as rightly ordained and canonically licenced to Preach as their Priests to say Masse and more too unless they could prove that office better And yet a simple contradiction is also better than a simple negative Upon our word the people may rely as well as their people upon the Priests and somewhat more upon the former considerations of an impossibility of Faith in the truth of their being Priests And yet our Ministers are not masters of their Faith but helpers of their joy as the Apostle saies of himself also the people do not simply rely upon them but believe by them And then he comes to the occasion of this debate betwixt us namely because that Noble Person carped at our blind obeying our Priests and believing them whereas all of our Religion could go to the fountain Ans Whether the words of that Noble Person were such as he expresseth them I cannot say but taking the Translation to be so far Scripture as that it agrees with the Original so far are they the Fountain not in language but insense And so they go to the Fountain oppositely to the Doctrine of the Church though not as oppositly to Translations And as for that which was said by that Noble Person of blind obeying is not here denied and we know that this blind obedience is commended by the Jesuite for the right and Christian obedience And their implicit Faith must be blind obedience upon two accounts First because they ought not to examin whether what the Priests say to them doth agree with the Doctrine of the Church and secondly they cannot examine it But he excepts against that Fountain but alas when that fountain which they conceive themselves to drink to their eternal health is so poisoned as I shewed in my last Ch. that millions of millions as your own Broughton saith run to hell flames by occasion of this corruption Good words He could not certainly say so unless he hath it from a Pope and Council And doth he take a passionate Hugh to be as credible with him as Cardinal Hugh And I think also the main thing for which Hugh Broughton was offended with our Translations was about the descent into Hell which by the Trent Council should seem not to be so necessary for they make no mention of it in their Creed And also if the sentence proceeds sufficiently upon Hughs words then their Latin is poysoned more as it should seem more by Isidor Clarius one of theirs And my Adversary might have remembred that we might as well slight Hugh Broughton in a singularity as he did Isidor Clarius And it seems the danger by Translations is not so great because he saies I may most truly say that far more perish by misunderstanding whilst they follow their Ministers and their own private judgement of discretion that which is truly Translated then perish by the corruption of that which is falsely Translated Ans This comes loosely from him also If it were obscure the Translation might miss if not how could they be in danger of perishing If they follow their Ministers or their own judgement without weighing the Scriptures they may erre as the Romanist does by blind obedience But if they compare the Doctrine of the Ministers with that of Scripture by their judgment of discretion as the Bereans did that which was spoken by St Paul and as he would have them compare the Doctrine of our Ministers with the Authority of their Church by their judgment of discretion they are in no such peril of damnation That which is not known without great difficulty may be unknown without great danger Otherwise we make God they may think an hard Master Thus they perish for not hearing that Church which their own Scripture bids them hear whereas in doing that which God bids there can be no danger of errour great or small Ans My Adversary is very importunate without new Arguments If he means that the Scripture bids us hear the Church universally as to Faith he begs the question If to hear as in point of trespass or so as not to contemn he fights with his own shadow as being ignorant of the Elench And so of the other clause if he means it so that God bids us absolutely do as the Church bids us there is the same fault in the discourse Better may we return it to them They perish because they will not hear the Scripture which the Scripture and the ancient Church bids them hear whereas in following Scripture there can be no danger of errour great or small and since also the Church can have no credible Authority but from the Scripture neither hath he proved the contrary whatsoever he saies and therefore he does well now to tell us that the Scripture bids us hear the Church He saies the doctrine of the Church is Gods Law Ans This is a kind of cryptical proposition I am sure Gods Law should be the doctrine of the Church but he means it for his use whatsoever the Church reacheth is Gods Law What is Gods Law in recto He speaks as boldly as if being but yet a private man he could not speak under infallibility So then we need not look any further for Gods Law and the Scripture then will not onely be insufficient for our direction to heaven as they say but not necessary which sometimes they will grant It will not be necessary neither as a rule as Bellarmin sometimes nor as a commonitory And we may wonder why amongst their Counsails they did not reckon this for one namely to use Scripture since upon this account we are not bound to it under peril of damnation but onely they will not allow it such perfection as to Counsails But then if the Church bids us not to read Scripture or bids us not to read Scripture it is not Gods Law and it is Gods Law but it is Gods Law that we should look into Scripture To the Law and to the Testimony Search the Scriptures saith Christ If the Church teacheth that we must worship Images or buy Images it must be Gods Law against Gods Law of the second Commandement If the Church bids us communicate under one kind it must be Christs Law against Christs Law And so God must contradict himself and Scripture must follow the sense of the Church as one of them is said to have said what a cause have they which hath need of so desperate propositions And private Priests are farr more likely to teach them Gods Law by
teaching them what the universal Church holds to be Gods Law than by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be Gods law as you would have them do Ans This doth not contradict If they say it is more likely we can say it But what is this to Faith And upon this condition they are undone For which of their private Priests are able to say positively that this is the doctrine of the whole Church for all ages and places since the Apostles The Church otherwise considered hath no considerable Authority and so we mean the universal Church Secondly Although thus the Church is not the regula regulans but the regula regulata yet they cannot bring the consent of the universal Church for the points of difference Ad num 11. 12. 13. 14. Herein he gives me many words towards asserting Tradition to be a sufficient bottom of faith but in all these how little he takes away of my answer any one may say better then I. In the beginning of the eleventh he goes upon a false supposition that in the times before Moses the traditions were received by the Church upon the infallibility of the Church They were received by the Church not infallibly by the Church The Church had it self herein as a mean of proposall not as the last motive of faith Their faith was terminated by the spirit of God in the matter of tradition was not determined by the Church's Authoritative delivery the objectum quod of their faith was not the Churches proposal Then 2. supposing what we do not grant yet there is not now the same reason for the Church because they had more appearances tâ—en of God to and in the Church then now there is or hath been since the Apostles times And therefore the rule is good Distingue tempora 3. This will make a circle How were they assured infallibly of tradition by the Church How were they infallibly assured of the Church by tradition then the resolution of their faith was not into the credit of the Church as infallible Therefore doth my Antagonist in vain say to me shew the ground they had there to hold the Church infallible Nay the proofe hereof must come from the affirmer Asserentis est probare They are to make good here two things first that they did hold their Church infallible otherwise how could any of the people hold it to be infallible unles the Church did so determin of iâ— selfe and then that though they did hold it to be infallible yet that it was so and must be so otherwise they could not believe anything Afterwards he makes a perâ—triction of my distinction that the word in substance of it was before the Church which was begotten by it and then he tells me what I adde thereunto that when there is as much need and as great a certainty of tradition as formerly then he may urge the argument Here he shifts and shuffles He tell me that I must understand it of the unwritten word and to be only in orall â—radition Right I understand it so But what is this to 〈◊〉 question whether the manner of conveyance by tâ—e 〈◊〉 in way of orall tradition was infallible and then whether we are bound to take all or part of necessary doctrine from the Church this way And can they now conclude the Church infallible in the matter of tradition besâ—ide the word written by their tradition of the word unwritten And can they shew that the Iews were equally bound to any Tradition before the word written which was not agreable to the word afterwards written Otherwise how can they supply this to their purpose in urging Traditions differing from Scripture in matter equally to Scripture as the Trent Council defines as before Let them come to the point and satisfie demands In his discourse following I can grant him all untill he come to this they only had Gods word revealed by tradition This we must debate upon as being ambiguously delivered for only may relate to the subject they and so the sense is the Iewes only had Gods word revealed by Tradition but this is concerned here or only may have relation to Gods word as to the matter which was revealed and so the sense is that they had only that word which was revealed by tradition and this comes not to the point neither or only may relate to the manner of revealing by tradition and thus indeed it is proper for the debate but thus it is denied if we take it thus that the word of God was no otherwise assured to them than by tradition though they onely being Jews had onely that word of God which was revealed by tradition to believe yet had they not only tradition by which they did beleeve And therefore his conclusion must be naught and all he saies to that purpose even to the end of his Paragraph In the twelfth he deales about the need of tradition and he saies that the need or necessity of Tradition which you conceive to have been greater then than now doth not make the Traditions more Credible Ans True it is that simply the need of them doth not make them to be more credible if they be to be believed but there is the question whether there is now any to be believed necessarily in point of faith when there is not such need of them Scripture is as credible when we are heaven in regard of it self yet there we have no need of it but as since we have no need of it there we have reason to believe that there it will not take place so neither should Traditions when there is not that need of them My answer then did bear it self upon this that if there were that necessity of Tradition now as then he might urge the argument because God have would provided sufficiently for security of tradition now as then falsum prius And we may take his own similitude those that have read many credible books of France have they any need of orall Tradition to believe that there is such a Kingdome as France he saies no yet these last are as certain he saies Well then no more need have we of tradition for the doctrine of Christ which we sufficiently read in Scripture So then although he concludes Traditions hopefull and superflua non nocent yet can he not conclude them as necessary which should have been demonstrated But this he would doe in following words even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions we have ever had with them a perpetual succession of horrible Divisions opening still wider and wider Again odd reflexions upon Scripture but it is well he jopnes Traditions with it to take part of the consequence as he thinks and yet it may be he does not think so but that the cause of the Divisions is only Scripture and had we had no Scriptures we should have had fewer Divisions Doth he think so Then how is Scripture necessary as they generally confesse when it