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
the Catholick Church is not sufficiently pleaded for the Roman and also Infallibility is not yet asserted to the Catholick And therefore your demonstration you talk of is but a flourish and your Argument you think unanswerable is not to be answered any more because that strength which it had is taken away And I have no more to say untill you have any more to say upon this point or any you mean in difference betwixt us But yet you have not done but like a Parthian who fights flying so you dispute still ending You say you will shew how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this Saint Cyprian Ep. 3. l. 1. saith That false Faith cannot have access to the Roman Church And when you please to press this I shall shew you what little ground you are like to get in that Epistle since though he names the Roman Church as the principal Church as the chair of Peter yet he there defends his own jurisdiction against those who would ramble to Rome to have their cause heard and judged there Neither will you get any credit by those whom he speaks of and in those words you quote there is an intimation that the Romans then when he did write were not such as those were in the Apostles times Apostolo praedicante and I shall tell you why it was called the principal Church for a principle of Unitie so he from whence the Sacerdotal Unitie began and also by reflexion from the Imperial Seat And if you will object Saint Jerome's authoritie in his Comment upon the first to Timothy that he calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome the Rectour of the House of God which you say Saint Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of Truth I shall return you answer that this is not very much for other Bishops were called in ancient times Papae too and that he calleth him the Rectour of the House of God that is not much neither since every Bishop is so The Rectour of the Church in that place where he lives And this will appear to be less considerable if you will take notice that in his Comment upon the first Ep. to Tim. the third chapter upon these words A Bishop must be irreprehensible where he speaks of a Bishop in communi he sayes Aut Ecclesiae Princeps non erit so a Bishop in general with him is a Prince of the Church and also you know what opinion he had betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Read to this purpose his Epistle to Evagrius If you come upon me again with Saint Jerome to Damasus in an Epistle you may tell me what Epistle for he wrote more then one and his Title in some is as is set down plainly Hieronimus Damaso Surely Popes then had not that state or else Saint Jerom had little reverence towards him And you may see also how the Pope writes to him to resolve questions And is this any sign of the Popes Infallibilitie Well but you say in that Epistle you will tell me of to Damasus he saith To your Holyness that is To the Chair of Peter I am joyned in Communion Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built he that gathereth not with thee scattereth So you And shall I give you answer to this now then I may tell you that this doth but magnifie the honour of his own Commuion and yet not much neither if you will observe what he saith in his Comment upon Amos the 6. chapter Petra Christus est qui donavit Apostolis suis ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur Tu es Petrus c. Then Peter is not in his Opinion the onely Rock you see Moreover so the Fathers you say in the Council of Chalcedon at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. And what can you ever make of this that they did say so No more then thus much that the Successour of St. Peter spoke Doth this signifie that all the Personal pripriviledges which Saint Peter had Pope Leo had then there needed but him to determin all the Controversies Yea according to Saint Jerom before if he had had all those priviledges which Saint Peter had yet the Church should not be built upon him onely for the other Apostles were Rocks too Yea and is he Christs Successour also If he be not then that which you would fain arrogate to him belongs onely to Christ to be Head of the Universal Church To cut short you remit me to Statleton and Bellarmin who both shew most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief causes The places you say you will alledge though for the present you refer me to them What do you mean Sir to put me off to those adversaries or in the interim to satisfie me until you have ranged them into another discourse I need not send you to our men who have withstood those Champions foot to foot Junctusque Viro Vir. Saint Cyprian in the place before makes an exception against this supreme Tribunal for Appeals and the African Churches After this you seem to threaten me with further Demonstrations of particulars material to your cause Untill which time it becomes me in civilitie to wait and not to take the word out of your mouth or your work out of your hand I shall let you rise that you may have more strength for the next assault I could leave here but that our late Feast may hint you to think of the contest betwixt the Roman and other Churches about the observavation of Easter And were those Hereticks or Schismaticks that would not stand to the Roman determination herein And as for your earnest demand to know but the name of one of the Pastours Doctors or Preachers in those last thousand Ages Years which preceeded Luther I may conceive my self obliged then to give you some account hereof when you shall tell me whoever of all the Bishops of Rome in a vast insolency took upon him the Empire of the whole Church under the Title of Universal Bishop before Boniface the Third took it from Phocas his Donation Untill Gregorie's time inclusively there was no such Usurpation and you know what Gregorie said of John of Constantinople for his pretending to it that whosoever did made himself the forerunner of Antichrist But if I would answer the answer would be easie and it is ready you have it alreadie in a Testimonie out of Tertullian in his Prescriptions it may be you took no notice of it then nor did I urge it to this purpose by way of Application to our Church thus That which we are the Scriptures were from the beginning we are of them before it was otherwise before they were corrupted by you Then we are as ancient as may be for our Doctrine and Sacraments they are found in the Records of Scripture And if Campian says All the Fathers were his and yours we may say the Apostles are ours Nay the Fathers
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
support against falling and therefore Isidor Clarius and Estius doe interpret it by firmamentum not fundamentum So the Church holds forth and holds up the Truth Therefore your meaning of Foundation above ground hath neither Foundation nor ground Secondly can you conceive and say that the Church is a Foundation of Truth comparatively to Scripture Is not the Scripture the Foundation of the Church The Scripture in the substance of the Word was before the Church because the Church was built upon it then the Scripture in the substance of it was the Foundation and is now being written And that which is the first Principle of all must be the Foundation of the rest and the further we go from it the lesse security we have because we go more into discourse which is uncertain Now the first Principle is Scripture not the Church because the Church is proved by Scripture and you proved even now or would have done the authority of it by Scripture The Church may give Testimony of the Scripture but the Scripture doth not onely give Testimony of the Church but doth ground it and constitute it and distinguish it and upon it it is built then this is the Foundation The Church is built upon the Scripture not the Scripture upon the Church As the Law hath it self to Justice so hath the Scripture it self to Faith Now the Law is the Foundation of Justice not the Judge so is the Scripture the Foundation of Faith not the Church which you say is the Judge For as the Judge is built upon the Law so is the Church upon Scripture And as the Judge is to go by the Law in his proceeding and sentence otherwise he erres so is the Church to go by the Law of Scripture otherwise it doth erre And as the Law is not to be proved it being the first Principle in Justice so is not the Scripture to be proved for it is the first principle in Faith But as the sentence of the Judge may be examined by Law so may the determinations of the Church be examined by Scripture since the Judge may erre and so may the Church But first prove that it hath not erred and then you will have another work to do to prove it cannot For the Faith of a Christian immediately is resolved into that which cannot deceive him And prove that it cannot erre and therefore is the infallible Judge or if you can prove it the back way it is the infallible judge therefore cannot erre Nextly You make some perstriction of my Criticisme if it may be so called and yet not mine neither but of others also whereby the termes the Pillar and Ground of Truth is referred to the commendation of the Mystery of Godlinesse after the Hebrew fashion to give these Praefaces of respect to so grand and sublime doctrines Here you are pleased to smile as if I had forgotten that this Epistle was written in Greek not in Hebrew and also you say no Hebrew form in the world can make that sense he intends Sir Will you please to give me leave to be even with you in a smile but no I have no minde to rejoyce in any mans imperfections Soberly I reply that I do well remember in what Language it was written and therefore I make it to be an Ebraisme in our use of the word which speaks a following of the Hebrew form in some other Language And he that doth not understand that there is many of these Ebraismes in the Greek of the New Testament doth not understand so much as I would desire And therefore that which you say that no Hebrew form can make my sense is not to be answered And to follow you although the Apostle had not spoken yet of Godlilinesse or the mystery of it might he not put this form of commendation in the front of the Doctrine of Godlinesse as as also in the first Epistle to Timothy 1 Tim. 1.15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ c. Neither have you any cause to object the reading of the words in our English since the distinction of Verses is not Canonical nor yet our English so accounted by us notwithstanding we have as much reason for it to make it as good as your Latin But your Adversary sayes you say that this Title of being the Pillar and ground of Truth agrees in the first place to Scripture Yes and so I do still and have shewed it so but you say it belongeth equally to any thing that is the true Word of God and therefore agreeth to the Scriptures because God speaketh in it and by it Right hold you there Rest your self here Set up your staffe here for you can go no further unlesse you will go up to Heaven and the Church Triumphant But God also speaketh by his Church and in his Church yes unto Authority not Infallibility and therefore that which followes remaines to be proved by you that he doth give as much Infallible assistance to the Church in a Council where is the Pope have you a minde to the opinion of the French Catholiques as he gave to him who did deliver his Word in Scripture It is utterly denyed And you may see plainly hereby how the Roman Tyranny over your Conscience as they would perswade you draws you necessarily into this perill of Blasphemy for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as Infallibly by his Church as in his Word And this some Pontificians do lean towards And then those by you should be called Enthusiasts not who oppose a private Revelation to Scripture but to the Church if God speaks as infallibly by his Church then speak no more against Enthusiasmes or if you do we shall tell you the story that one was accused to Alexander for being a Pirate so then said he that was accused to Alexander I am a Pirate with one Fly-boat and you are not because you have a Navy So the private men are by you accounted Enthusiasts because they have but their own singularities for their bottom but the Church of Rome is not to be charged therewith because they have so many with them And yet it may be if Infallibility were to be determined by Votes whether it did belong to the Words of God onely or also to the Word of the Church you would go neer to lose it for all Churches hold the Scripture Infallible and you too but no Church but the Roman holds the Church to be Infallible and then also you must assume that you are the Church otherwise you would not hold it Infallible You say again it is objected that in these words rather the office of the Church is set forth then her Authority To which you say your answer is clear that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out then by saying that she is the Pillar and Ground of Truth c. But the question is whether these words
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
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
conscience tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum hold that which is certain leave that which is uncertain it is certain that the Scripture is infalible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is infalible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the rule and ground and cause of faith So I in my last But you leave out all notice of my disputing this with you in point of wisdome and cut off your own confession and would have me to make this a Demonstration absolutely in point of truth You do wisely to shuffle it off since you cannot well bear the dint of it in the way of discourse ad hominem And yet also is it necessarily certain that if our grounds be more certain then your's are not because they are contradictorie But you making it to be in my account an absolute Demonstration answer first the Scripture connot be proved to be the word of God without the Church be infalible as I shall shew ch 8. But this was not now the particular question I disputed upon your own concession And therefore this is nothing to my Argument Apply your answers to my proceeding with you upon your account of prudence And then secondly Though it be not a Demonstration that the Scripture is infalible the Church not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture yet it concludes upon advantage for though the Church were infalible in the testimony of the Scripture to be the word of God yet the Scripture were to be the immediate ground of all necessary points Thirdly Neither doth it contradict my assertions that the Church is not the rule and cause of faith though it were infalible in this Testimony for if it were infalible in this yet would it not follow it should be infalible in all as I have told you and you have not answered me yet And then Fourthly The Scripture may appeare to be the word of God though the Church be not infalible as will be shewed in answer to you And therefore all you say upon this hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie Article of our faith that all the Scripture is the word of God and therefore upon her Authority I believe the Scripture to be most infalible yet because I ground this belief upon her Authoritie her Authoritie is yet the last ground of faith I say all this hath no sound discourse and will come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even into nothing upon the two last answers first because if from hence I believe the Scriptures to be the word of God yet am I not therefore ex vi consequentiae bound to hold the Church the last ground of faith in all things for it plainly concludes a dicto secundum quid We can hold that the Generall Councell may be infalible in points necessary though not in all points whatsoever although you must hold infalibilitie in all or none because you say all is delivered by the Church upon her Authority equally without respect to the matter And then secondly upon the last answer which was the fourth we shall cashiere all that is said here for that it will appear that the Scripture is the word of God without the Churches Authoritie for the corroboration of the Title And so there needs not the infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weighty Article of faith that all the Scripture is the word of God â—um 7. And whereas in your next number you promise such souls as have forsaken an infalible Church an happy eternity upon this ground that those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture I pray God their Soules come not to be required at your hands Ans I am beholding to my Adversary for his good wishes that I may not answer for other mens souls But if he takes here forsaken formally and an infalible Church really so not accounted only to be so by him I deny it that we have so forsaken such a Church for neither is it infalible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides they have rather forsaken us and the whole Church in pretending infalibilitie to themselves and Domination over all that will be true Christians No particular Church can be bound to another more than as it doth comply with the Catholick Church now then if any do leave the Catholick as the Roman hath done we cannot join with them wherein they leave the Catholick either in point of faith or discipline If we are to give respect to a particular Church as an actuall part of the whole then where it separates we must follow the whole A turpis est omnis pars universo suo non congruens And yet they first made the actuall Schism when the Popes Bull prohibited communion with us So then take forsaken rightly and an infalible Church really we deny the charge Take them otherwise we denie the consequence of danger But my Adversarie would prove our ground to be groundless first because no Soul can have infalible assurance of the Scriptures being the true word of God if the Church be not infalible c. Whereof you promise more Num. 20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Ans This we have had so often without proof that it is to no purpose to say any thing to words for Arguments Scaurus negat as Alphonsus de Castro opposeth his adversary Yea also you refer me here for proof in the third ch Your conclusion is here your proof there so far is your conclusion from proof Premisses were wont to be before the Conclusion but your opinion is already shewed vaine as touching the ground of your certainty and your vanity of my opinion I shall refute when you shew it And so you serve me for the second respect wherein you say my ground is groundlesse for you say it is manifestly false that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture as you shew ch 3. Your conclusion here that it is manifestly salse c. I believe will be too large for your Arguments as it is now too soon We follow your order as having nothing to do untill you begin In your eighth Par. You say I find nothing in the next Par. which I have not here answered Onely you still force me to say again I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre what proceedeth from this Authority we professe to proceed from the Authority of the Church When the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent You say you find nothing in it which here you have not answered And what can I finde here but that you say Only you force me to say again Here is some ingenuitie that you seem not to love to swell your papers with repetitions Therefore prove it once say it no more Quid
put in such words as I knew how to answer and leaved out his true words I altered no words but expounded him in them as I had reason For if every one might be left free without such a Judge to what he judged best this freedome would be simple or morall If simple then it would be without a fault and if morall it would be without a fault but now he denies that he meant a morall freedome Yet is it best for him to understand such a freedome according to his principles for if we have not a morall freedome without a fault to believe what we judge best then have we lesse reason of giving undisputed assent to an externall Judge since we are awed and commanded under peril of a fault to take heed what we do believe And therefore cannot we believe this Judge with blind obedience because it seems now we may not believe what we will but we must see good reason for what we do believe And good reason it is that good reason should exclude blind obedience And indeed his consequence is false in terminis for we have not a simple freedome to believe what we will as I said because the understanding naturally assents to truth apparent But this he takes no notice of as if I had said no such thing How much of my words he takes away privatively which must inferre a variation of my sense may be gathered by compare of my copy with his rehersall and it appears that negatively he hath taken away a great part of my words for he saies to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so his argument is null and his vindication nullified Onely I must also note that he did not well weigh his own consequence if every man were left free to hold what he judged best we should have as many Religions as private judgements for in principles of Religion we are not like to differ if we believe the Scripture and particular Controversies which you direct your discourse to if you speak ad idem if not you are more to be blamed do not make different Religions because then you must have different Religions amongst your selves In the begining of this number my Adversary would faine take me tripping or enterfearing upon my own words by a consequence Num. 4. because as he thinks I take away all meanes of regulating our judgement and yet say we should not follow our own judgement of discretion without meanes of regulating our judgement Ans His reason may well be put into this forme he that taketh away all infallible means takes away all means able to produce an infallible assent but I take away all infallible means Then I deny his assumption I do not deny all infallible meanes I do not deny all meanes because I deny some to be infallible and I do not deny all infallible means because I deny some that he thinks infallible in both he would impose upon me the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a particulari All means are not infallible and there may be and is other infallible meanes besides those which he supposeth and I deny The Scripture is an infallible mean to hold to this I deny the infallibilitie of Councils And then again secondly I deny a necessity of infallible assent to all points of question either part of the contradiction may consist with salvation For corroboration of his opinion about the infallibilitie of Councils he brings in afterward St. Gregory the Great 's saying I do professe my self to reverence the first four Councils as I reverence the four books of the Gospell And in like manner I do receive the fifth Council whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anathema Ans First we do not think the judgement of St. Gregory to be greater than the judgement of the four Councils if we do not think them infallible we have no cause or reason to be urged with one Gregory Secondly we also reverence the learning of that Gregory as he reverenceth the books of the Gospell if the as be taken in similitude not proportion in the quality not equality Thirdly if the opinion of St. Gregory should prevaile with me why doth not the Authority of the Fathers whom I produced for our cause and the answers I gave to his Authorities before prevaile with him Testem quem quis inducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se Fourthly let us marke his own words And I also receive the fifth Councill in like manner Now the fifth Council was that of Constantinople wherein Vigilius was condemned in his defence of the three Chapters And the Council proceeded without his consent yea and against his mind So that if St. Gregory's authoritie were authentick the cause were spoiled for so infallibilitie should not be stated in a Council with the Popes confirmation Fifthly oppose and confront Gregory with Gregory Nazianzen with the Roman and which of them shall we believe for Councils Neither doth the whole machin of our Religion tople and tumble to the ground upon my former principle as he imagined though he would presse me more strongly to shew upon what Authoritie I take Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God This by the way should not have been brought into question with us since we give more reverence to the Scriptures than they do and therefore are like to have a firmer faith in it to be the word of God than they The main design of my Adversary at first I suppose was to debate the faith of particular points the Scripture being supposed to be the word of God although not supposed by him to be the onely rule But therefore let me returne his own words changing the tables that the whole machin of his Religion doth tople and tumble to the ground upon his ground by pressing him to shew by what authority he takes Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God before he hath proved the infallibilitie of the Church His reason follows because there cannot be a more groundless ground upon which you by rejecting the infallible authority of the Church are forced to build your whole religion to wit that you by meer reading of Scripture can by its light as you discover the sun by its light discover it so manifestly to be the undoubted word of God that this discovery sufficeth to ground your infallible assent to that verity Ans First he is not surely right in this that I am forced by rejecting his way of believing Scripture to this way If he be then I am right in the choice of my principle upon my refusal of his but Mr. Chillingworth whom he blames me for differing from in this point does find as it may seem and as he himself professeth a middle way of grounding faith in the Scripture to be the word of God namely by the authoritie of universall Tradition which as any can distinguish from this way so he doth distinguish from the Pontifician
way as is known but this we shall have fuller occasion to speake of hereafter Secondly whereas he saies that I say by meer reading of Scripture c. he supposeth that which is not so For I do not deny the use of other meanes to further us towards our assent intrinsecall arguments from Scripture extrinsecall of the Church but that which privately we resolve our faith of Scripture to be the word of God in is the autopistie of Scripture which God by faith infused shews unto us And by Catarinus his reasoning in the Trent Council about subjective certitude of grace private faith is not inferior to the Catholick faith in point of certaintie but onely in universalitie Thirdly the Church according to my Adversary hath its power of binding to faith by a Generall Council with the Popes confirmation of the Decrees then let us know by what Council all the parts of Scripture were confirmed by a Generall Council with the Popes consent for the first six hundred years somewhat might be put in as towards the use of some parts of the Apocryphall books but it doth not appear that they were canonized as to faith nor any of the Canonicall books declared by them as quo ad nos authentick For they were wont to meddle with little but emergent questions whereas of those parts of Scripture which were generally received there was no question whether they were the word of God And being not received by the authoritie of a Council establishing them what ground have those who differ from us to receive them since they say the infallible Authoritie is in the Church Representative with the Popes confirmation He goes on And it must be a far surer discoverie than that by which we discover the Sun by his light for this discovery can onely ground a naturall certaintie the other must ground a supernaturall not certainty but infallibilitie Ans The supernaturall habit of faith hath it felf more to intelligence than to science Intelligence is known to be that naturall habit whereby the understanding is disposed to assent to the truth of principles when the terms of those principles are known And faith doth beare more proportion to this as being the supernaturall habit in regard of cause whereby we are disposed to believe supernaturall verities whereof the first is by our opinion that the Scripture is the word of God taking the Scripture materially Now as the principles naturall are seen through their own light by the naturall habit of intelligence so are the supernatural principles seen through their own light by the supernaturall habit of faith And as certainly as I see the Sun by its light with mine eye so certainly do I see the truth of naturall principles by the naturall habit of intelligence and as certainly as I see the veritie of naturall principles by intelligence so do I see supernaturall verities by the supernaturall habit of faith yet not so evidently as I see the Sun by its light or naturall principles through their light But it seems by my Adversary that this will not serve for he urgeth not onely for a certainty but infallibilitie To this we answer first Take certaintie properly and I think there is no fundamentum in re for this distinction It may be because we are wont to use the term of infallibilitie to points of faith we think that whatsoever is certain is not infallible and it is true in regard of the manner or meane of certaintie so that whatsoever is certain is not infallible for so certaintie seems to be more generall but certainly whatsoever is to us certaine is also infallible as we take it in a generall sense But secondly if there be any degree of infallibilitie above certaintie we have it by this way of Divine faith infused by the Spirit of God because we are most sure of this principle that God cannot deceive nor be deceived therefore what we take upon his word we are most certain of and more than by our own discourse and reason for that is in the nature of it more imperfect Thirdly this is not so wisely considered to straine our faith to the highest peg of utmost infallibilitie as they determine the ground of it namely the Authoritie of the Church because the Authoritie of it as it is contradistinguished to the Spirit and word is but humane and as it is resolved into the word by the Spirit so it comes into a coincidence with us Fourthly whereas he sometimes upbraided us with an essentiall defect of faith because we take it not by their way of the Church it appeares yet that some of our Church have in case of martyrdome held the faith of Scripture and of points taken from thence as infallibly as they have held Scripture upon tenure of the Church And it seems ours did not hold the Scripture or the points upon the authoritie of the Church for they differed from the Ponteficians unto the death about the Church and about points of Doctrine which the Papist urged they denied notwithstanding they were Doctrines of their Church Now according to the Pontifician argument if they had received the Scripture by the Authoritie of the Church they must upon the same reason have received every Doctrine proposed by the Church And therefore it seems they had a faith of Scripture infallible without the Roman infallibilitie Secondly the Spirit of God speaking in the Church is to them the efficient of faith But the Spirit of God speaks also in the Scripture If not how do they prove that the Spirit of God speakes in the Church if it does then may we believe him at first word and immediately as to the Church As to what he saith secondly that he hath shewed in his last chap. second Num. that a review of the definitions of a Council untill they be resolved into the rule of Scripture doth open a wide gap to heresie I need say no more than what hath been said in answer thereunto His meer saying so doth not surely make it so nor is it probable for it doth not open a gap to heresie materiall because Scripture is the rule of truth nor yet to heresie formall because it may be done without opposition to the Councils For simple dissent doth not include formall opposition But yet further he saith And for your importance of the matter I will here further declare in an example which hereafter will stand me in much use Let us take an Arrian Cobler to this man This your Doctrine giveth the finall review of the Council of Nice Ans Yes I must interpose in the severall passages of his storie of the case it doth but how It doth not give a review by way of authoritie to others but he is to take his own libertie for his own satisfaction in point of faith Otherwise he believes he knows not what and so in proportion he comes under the censure of Christ upon the Samaritan woman in the 4. of St. John the 22. Ye
worship ye know not what If the woman was not to be ruled by the judgement of the Samaritans why is a Cobler to be ruled by the authoritie of others since simply the authoritie of the Samaritans was as good as the authoritie of others and therefore our faith must be resolved into some higher ground than the authoritie of men He goes on in his case And you give him leave after he hath perused the definitions of this Council defining God the Son to be of the self same individuall substance with his Father to examine them untill he find them resolved into the infallible rule of Scripture Ans Yes we say he may take his own liberty to do so But also we say he ought to conferre with those who are learned that he may more easily finde the sense of Scripture the advice he takes from others doth not determine his assent but disposeth it It doth point him to it but he must see it with his own sight He doth examine them and chiefly how they doe agree with that text St. John the 10. chap. 30. verse I and my Father are one on which text you afterwards confesse the infallibilitie of this definition to be chiefly grounded Ans So did St. Athanasius professe as I told him in my last rejoinder and he doth not say any thing in deniall But as to the point as being clear in Scripture there are other texts plain enough as in the first Epistle of St. John the fifth chap. the twentieth verse in his son Jesus Christ this is the true God Indeed the whole verse is for our purpose And we know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding that we should know him that is true And we are in him that is true in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God He hath given us a mind that we should know Here is faith infused whereby we know him and therefore is not this faith an effect of the authoritie of the Church And this son is here said to be the true God not onely God nuncupatively as the Arrians and Socinians but the true God So Bartholomeus Petrus who makes the Supplement to Estius's Comment upon the Epistles and subjects all to the holy Roman Church Et nihil ominus etiam Filius ab Apostolo verbis expressis nominatur verus Deus parte hujus versus quarta quae sequitur hic est verus Deus So he And notwithstanding also the Son is named by the Apostle in expresse words the true God in the fourth part of this verse this is the true God Now in the examen of the conformitie of this definition with this text the Arrian Cobler by his poor understanding is easily able to see that which a wiser man would yet see sooner that he is put upon a necessitie to inquire how God the Son and his Father are one whether it be by affection onely as Arrians hold or one in the self same individuall Substance as the Council defineth Well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then This is no other than that which stands with our duty of obedience to that precept in the first Ep. to the Thes 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good And secondly were we to rest in the definition of Councils yet should we be put upon inquiry into the sense of their words which would make a trouble and a difference as the words of the Trent Council did to Soto and Viga And therefore if he could prejudice our cause with perplexities of ambiguities neither are they certain by their own Councils which sense to stand to since these learned men so eagerly combated upon different senses of the words of the Council upon the Decrees about Free-will and Predestination and though they had their interesse in the Council for learning and estimation yet it seems did not know the onely sense and true scope of the Synod as is said of them in the History of the Trent Council p. 216. My Adversary goes on And inquiring this he cals to mind that other text John the 17.21 Where Christ prayeth all his Disciples may be one thing as thou Father in me and I in thee So then let him proceed with the caution of this rule res non est subject a sermoni sed sermo rei The thing is not serviceable to the speech but the speech to the thing Here will the Cobler say because he hath been often instructed by his own Doctors Christ who said I and my Father are one thing demandeth that his Disciples may be one thing as he and his Father are one thing but he doth not demand that his Disciples may be all one thing in the self same individuall substance therefore he concludes Christ is not one thing in the self same individuall substance with his Father but one thing in affection onely as his Disciples might come to be one thing Ans But this Cobler if he had more mind to finde truth in Scripture than his own opinion might goe on and see that the Jews who were like to understand the words of Christ as observing what was said by him to them understood Christ not to speak that they were one by way of affection For because of this speech they took up stones to cast at him because he being a man made himself God as it is in the 33 ver of the 10. ch of St. John Which interpretation of his words our Saviour did not in the following verses deny although he seemed to wave that sense and yet also in effect brought it in by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 38 ver Secondly although if there had been no other text concerning Christ's Divinity there would not have been so clear a conclusion from the text of the Divinity of Christ yet if we compare it with other passages of the Scriptures we may well believe that sense and also if the text doth not afford that sense how shall we believe a Council when the Councill of Nice as Athanasius said urged this text thrice against the Arrians And therefore this exception against the sufficient clearnesse of Scripture in this point must be withdrawn or else they must condemne themselves because the Council of Nice determined the point not by their authority but by the text And therefore cannot the Cobler say as my Adversary prompts him false therefore is this definition of the Council which cannot be resolved into the infallible word of God in which all things necessary to Salvation as this point is are plainly set down as this place is not My Adversary first might have spoken more moderately not false is it therefore which the Council hath defined but not necessary because the sense of the words may be such when they are spoken betwixt God or him and his Disciples therefore they are such between his Father and him this is no rationall inference Duo cum idem dicunt non est idem When
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
thus Since you bring the authority of Councils to a little more than nothing and again the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing in order to the ending of Controversies this your violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers will give me leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the begining appeared possible for it is evident out of your own words that it is to no end to deale with you out of Fathers and I am resolved to deale with no body but to some end I will therefore humor you in this and I will lay aside all that might hereafter be said concerning the opinion of Fathers Ans Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem My Adversary is so curious in this apology of his that he is to be suspected I gave no such occasion but he takes it against the use of the Fathers in this point I am not guilty in any sober mans judgement of any privative disrepect unto them I do not bring the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing what is due justly either to Councils or to Fathers I do willingly give But because infallibility is not granted therefore am I charged with disrespect This is a fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that denies them this doth not deny unto them such reverence as is equal And for the Fathers I have not waved any testimony which hath been produced against our cause I have not said as he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea I have used the same Argument against my Adversaries in triumphum Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he in his Rhetorick but I have said nothing which is not conformable to the word of God to the consent of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church but because I will not make the word of the Fathers and of the Doctors equall to the infallible word of God therefore am I not reasonably accused of slighting the Fathers and Doctors of the antient Church But this was necessary for my Adversary to colour his refusall of answering to those Fathers I brought against him and to the answers which I gave to the testimonies of the Fathers which he brought against me So difficulty is sometimes by Sophisters construed for impertinency By this Argument I must say nothing proper but what may be easily answered But it had been more ingenuous first to have exhibited solid authorities out of the Fathers of the Primitive antiquity or at least to have given a sufficient answer to my refutation of what use he made of those he quoted against me and then to have laid aside the urging of the Fathers upon my account of Refusall of them onely as infallible Judges To gather up then my exceptions against this part of his apologie I say first I do not either in terms or by consequence bring Councils to a little more than nothing nor the authority of the Fathers to little lesse than nothing in order to the ending of Controversies I allow them to be of great use in his terms in order to the ending of Controversies There may be an ordinability of them towards or in order to this end without infallibility in them they may finde out and give us the infallible sense of Scripture but we cannot take it so upon their word their authority is moving but not cogent of our assent Secondly I except against those words wherein he imputes to me a violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers This I deny Neither in termes nor by discourse can they finde such words or sense from me I have used their own weapon against them I have answered their objections from them I renew the provocation and challenge which Bishop Jewell and others of our Divines have made to them to shew if they can any notable part yea any two yea any one of the ancient Fathers that clearly and constantly hath professed the points wherein we differ from them And if the Fathers had been for them why did they corrupt some passages of the Fathers which spoke against them which they have not yet cleared themselves of Yea thirdly whereas he says my refusall of the Fathers will give him leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the beginning I say not insisting here upon the impropriety of a Treatise if it be no more as to my satisfaction or of the terme if it be more that there had been rome enough for all the Fathers authorities he could produce for himself and also for all that he could say to my answers about their testimonies without Theremaking his Treatise so long if he had left out impertinences and references and repetitions Therefore hath my Adversary taken more liberty than I afforded him in his refusall of dealing with the Fathers yet not more liberty than was necessary for him lest he should be in necessity to answer what answers I made to his former testimonies of them and also to what testimonies I have produced against him And I finde him wary lest I should make this advantage of his resolution to wave the Fathers He would make it to be no design but a rationall purpose therefore he goes on But doe not think that I doe this as if what you here said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me or as if what you say were in the least degree hard to be answered for you yourself cannot be ignorant that we alleadge plenty of the Fathers against you as are confessed by your selves to have been the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church Ans The rule is good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And surely he is not damned that doth not believe that all which is said by men on their own behalf is true But secondly they do not produce many testimonies of the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church namely not of the first 300 years nay nor of the first 600 years others are Postnates and have not the honor of Primitive Antiquity Yea some they name as testimonies for them were not Fathers And some works they cite for them which are falsely ascribed to true Fathers as several of our Writers have demonstrated even with the Confession of some of their Church Thirdly whereas he saies Do not think that I do this as if what you have said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me he wrongs me with a fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he would have men believe that I spake against the authority of the Fathers simply because I spake against their authority as absolutely convictive of the understanding in point of truth And also whereas he saies it did not find credit with him I am of his opinion for certainly little is like to be believed by the Pontificians that is against them But after this manner his Treatise might soon be answered it finds not credit with me One blot would serve for all the Treatise Fourthly what
he constitutes the sense imperially not expounds it rationally and makes his authority antecedent to the sense and not the sense antecedent to their definition but ipso facto this must be the meaning thereof because he saith so Is this a clearing of the Scripture Fifthly it must be clear to me that the Councils have cleared the difficulty otherwise I should deny my assent to the text because it is not clear in the construction and yet should give my assent to the Councils determination and yet this not clear to me neither Now then if they will have us judge of the definition of the Council that so we may determine our assent for we must by judgement conclude the Council clearly to determine the sense in question or else we cannot give any due assent why will they not allow us to judge also of the sense of Scripture that so rationally we may believe it Sixthly as the clarity is wanting as I suppose he means but to some texts so also but to some persons and therefore is there not an absolute need to all of this infallible Judge Yea how many took liberty to suspend their assents to the determinations of the Council of Trent and yet they would have a Council to be binding to others Seventhly is the defect of the degree of claritude negative or privative not privative for that will charge God And so that of Nilus will be true to be sure he that accuseth the Scripture accuseth God but if negative it is no other than God thought fit for his word And do we think that God would require under pain of damnation belief to his word and yet not give unto it competent clearnesse respectively to the points of faith necessary to be believed Eighthly what then must we think as towards their salvation of all those antient Christians for some centuries wherein they had not a Generall Council were they all lost Or had they faith without a Generall Council If the former how do they say the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church And why do they also not dis-acknowledge those times of the Church to have been the purest And were so many of them Martyrs and yet lost But if the latter then also may we have faith without a Generall Council sufficiently to salvation Ninthly the senses of Scripture as to particular points were clear to the Fathers in the Council severally before they gave their suffrages on either part were they not If not how came they to vote for that sense which was right If so then the product of the Councils definition is not it which clears the sense of the Scripture to them and consequently not to us Tenthly and lastly if the Scripture doth not give us clear texts for all points necessary and therefore we must stand to the authority of the Church then also the Church shall not be it upon which we rely as a competent Judge because the Church even in a Council doth not deliver the sense of Scripture so clearely as to end all controversies And this manifestly appears by perusall of the Trent History wherein it frequently occurs that the Decrees and Canons were so framed as to give a liberty of divers senses for more satisfaction and satisfaction to more And this last account in this last particular doth make sufficient reply to what he speaks in the ten next following lines wherein he objects to me the difference of those amongst us to proceed from our acknowledgement of Scripture to be the triall of faith Surely he did not the same day consider the differences at home It is not proper to object that which is common we can retort it mutatis mutandis And we see with our eys those who submit to the authority of the Church as infallible to disagree mainly in these very points which the Synod hath spoken of for one thinketh in his Conscience the Church is to be understood one way another thinketh in his Conscience it is to be understood another way and this other is licensed interpretatively by the Synod to differ even from the greatest authority upon earth as the other thinks because he thinks the Synod hath defined for him And then he may easily have license to differ from another private man and that other private man hath as good ground to differ from the other So our Adversaries incussion of our differences amongst us is patly repercussed upon them and with more weight and edge too because secondly we holding a difference of points by the matter are capable of more excuse for our disagreements in things not fundamentall than they who holding all equally upon the proposall of the Church must needs differ in that which is equally fundamentall because all that is defined by the Church is equally so Yea also he that errs in one point with the Papists according to Mr. Knot 's argument hath faith in none And one of them that differ about the sense of the Council must needs err though it is undetermined which And therefore thirdly would not my Adversaries have been pleased with such an argument from me The Pontificians do disagree therefore their opinion is the cause thereof and if that should be the cause we should all disagree and in all Neither fourthly doe we license any to differ but they take their natural liberty to suspend assent till they see the word of God as well as upon good reasons you move men to chuse your Religion And therefore as to necessaries Scripture is the possible means of Vnion in the interior man in which faith onely doth consist And this Union we are to consider in order to Salvation not the exteriour union which is not so necessary though simply desirable As far as truth will go it must go with it but not further And yet this is now and then mingled in the discourse of my Adversary and very politickly because the Church hath more conjunction with an exteriour union of peace than an interiour of faith What you add of God his sufficiently providing for his Church by Scripture onely is in this sense true that in Scripture we read that we are to hear the Church c. Ans Surely I do not owe in ingenuity any thanks to any Adversary of mine for this that they seem thus to please themselves in a study how to make our opinion tollerable If I do I will soon be out of debt as soon as I can say that their opinion about the Church to be the High way to truth is so far true because it was wont to send us to the Scripture for our rule of faith and manners as hath been shewed Secondly what Council ever determined the sense of that precept goe tell the Church to be understood of a Council as to bind absolutely to the belief of all that they propound And if a Council had not defined this the sense then how shall we know it to be the sense by my Adversary because
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
unto salvation because Timothy as before and also with sufficient plainnesse since the old Testament could do it before the new was consigned but the Scripture taken in complexo doth so Therefore this text is sufficiently full and clear against them And his argument out of this text against me wherein he says he hath a contradictory conclusion against me we will now hear this it is That which in this text is said onely to be profitable for these ends is not thereby said to be sufficient to these ends and yet much lesse sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone but the Scripture in this text is said onely to be profitable to these ends here expressed Ergo Ans The Answer unto this of his may maintains the major of my last Syllogism For thus Estius and my Adversary distinguish upon the major that the Scripture may be profitable and not necessary for these ends and so in effect the Rhemists upon the text that the reading of the Holy Scripture is a great defence and help of the faithfull especially of a Bishop And this is the ground of his Argument We answer therefore first if he means his major thus that what is not said in terms to be so is not said so by consequence neither his minor is not true And if he mean it otherwise it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for we can acknowledge his Conclusion without prejudice to our cause for though it be not said so in terms yet by equivalence and interpretative it is Secondly to the minor we say though it be only said to be profitable yet since it is not said that it is onely profitable it doth not exclude sufficiency that which affirms so much simply doth not simply deny more for then we could no way reconcile divers historicall passages of the Evangelists But that it doth include sufficiency Bellarmin and my Adversary do deny Bellarmin to Chemnitius my Adversary to me Yet Bellarmin stands not so much against the term as if it could not be understood sufficient but contends that the Scripture is not sufficient alone as meat though it be profitable to nutrition yet it is not sufficient alone For if naturall heat be wanting or any other Instrument of the body necessary to nutrition it will not nourish in his fourth B. de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 10. But what is this to the purpose For we doe not maintain the Scripture to be sufficient to salvation alone for there must be faith and repentance and obedience And therefore St. Paul adds upon the place through faith that is in Christ Jesus but we say it is sufficient in suo genere as to direction of us this satisfies our cause If this be confessed we have done As meat is sufficient as to the matter which should nourish so the word of God is sufficient as to the matter of things necessary to be known yea for our comfort too as Isid Clarius upon the text and therefore he says when St. Paul had used many consolations he useth here the greatest For surely it is the most strong consolation to have the Scripture sent from Heaven quae et tantis in tenebris lumen praeferat et gravissima quaeque efficiat ut fiant levia And these comforts he says he did seasonably give him when he was to tell him of the sad news of his departure And as for the word there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we would take aim of the sense by the Syriack since the Greek intimates the Hebrew in the new Testament and the Syriack is called the Hebrew in the new Testament it seems to be so profitable as is sufficient because the word for profitable in the Syriack is taken from a word which signifies to abound and exceed Thirdly although all that is profitable is not sufficient though all that is sufficient is profitable yet that which is profitable ut sic as to perfection seems very sufficient That which helps him to perfection helps him sufficiently quoad hoc as to point of knowledge And if it extends not to sufficencie in the expression the reason may be because other things also are profitable practically And therefore is sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone Because there need not be any controversies necessary to salvation yea rather necessary it is that there should be no Controversies about things necessary to salvation because possibility of error in those things is so dangerous And therefore he supposeth that which is not to be supposed For the man of God may be perfect by Scripture ready furnished to every good work The man of God to wit the Minister So St. Paul of Timothy according to proportion to the Jewish Title but thou man of God flie these things And this we strengthen with St. Crysostom's note upon the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply partaking but with accuratenesse furnished and again before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instead of me thou hast the Scriptures not traditions if you will learn any thing from thence you may so that the Fathers comment imports the Scripture to be sufficient as to learning If any thing else could be pretended as equally profitable then either St. Paul's teaching him but he was to depart and in stead of him he was to have the Scriptures or traditions but he saith not thou hast the word not written but thou hast the Scriptures and that the man of God by the Scripture may be with accuratenesse furnished Therefore untill they can find any thing sufficient without Scripture or any thing necessarily conducing to the sufficiency of Scripture we rest contented with our cause upon account of this text wherein also as usually by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lesse is said more is understood If the Pontificians had such a text for their cause this profitable text would have been made sufficient As for the third answer that St. Paul doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture whence he is most weakly cited to prove that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation We may not say that this is weakly urged For the argument proceeds a fortiori as before If part of the Canon if the old Testament be sufficient then the whole much more And if Traditions were necessary to be added to the old Testament as happily they will say why did God give us the new Testament And to be even with them again when they speak of the Roman Church we might also say this is weakly urged to prove the opinion of the whole Church because they do not speak of the whole Church Again when this is proved it is manifest that part of the whole Canon is lost How then know you the same necessary points not delivered in other parts of Scripture were not delivered in these parts of Scripture which are perished and so are come not to be extant
said that God wanted ability to set down other points as plainly and there is no repugnance ex natura rei that other points should be as plainly set down as that therefore if God in his wisedom and goodnesse caused by his Spirit that verity to be clearly delivered for our salvation how can we believe that he did not also direct the Pen-men of the Spirit of God to deliver all other points necessary to salvation with necessary plainnesse Again thirdly if the word of the Prophets was a more firme word than the Testimomonies of the Apostles as Estius upon the place as to the Jewes for the faith in the Messiah then where we have that and the writings of the Apostles in the new why should we not account this a more sure word than the word of the Church in this point or any other contained in Scripture Why may not we as likely doubt of the Church specially a particular Church as well as the Jews might doubt of the Apostles And is not the Doctrine of the old and new Testament more sure than the Doctrine of the Church To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this it is because there is no light in them as the Prophet speaks then the Scripture is the rule of their Doctrine and therefore more sure that which gives credit to others must be more credible Yea and untill they prove that something new in substance was added to the new Testament above what was contained in the old that text availes also for Christians against any thing not written Neither can the Romanist say that that word of Prophecy shines in a dark place by the hand of man in the Church for it is spoken of the word as written and the Prophets who then wrote the word were dead If the Prophets had been then living it had been reasonable for the Jews to have taken their direction from their mouth as it might be reasonable for us to take the word of God from the mouth of the Apostles were they now living but the Prophets are dead and the Apostles are dead by whom we know God spake but that God speaks now by the Church as he did by them we are yet to deny untill it be better proved or these texts better answered But we have one more Your sixth and last text is Acts the 17. where it is said of the Beroeans Num. 14. they received the word with all readinesse of mind and searched the Scripture daily whether those things were so Against the proceedings of this Text he brings severall Pleas some common to former Texts as at the latter end of the number these are answered already those that are new we shall here examine And first he calls for one evident clear syllable which saith the Beroeans did search the Scripture before they believed St. Paul Nay is it not first said they received the word with all readinesse of mind Ans First he says that which is to be proved that those words they received the word with all readinesse of mind do inferr rather that they did believe St. Paul before they did search the Scriptures For though St. Paul was infallible in his Doctrine and therefore might be believed and ought yet it doth not appear that they were perswaded of him and therefore it is not said they recieved St. Paul with all readinesse of mind but they received the word and they might receive it with all chearfulnesse as good though they did search it whether true Secondly they might receive it with all readinesse upon appearance of probability although they did not believe it until by search they found it agreeable to the Scriptures Yea somewhat may be received without probability and with all readinesse of mind too as an Adversaries paper And that they did not believe it untill they had compared it with the writings of the Apostles appears more probable by the following words that they did daily search the Scriptures if these things were so their search was an sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If they did believe why did they still search and daily search Doe we search for that which infallibly we believe Then where is certainty which Mr. Knot makes necessary to faith But he himself will ingenuously confesse as much as seems requisite for our cause in these words upon those motives which St. Paul proposed to them before they searched the Scriptures and being by those motives and Instructions well enlightned to understand the Scriptures they for their further comfort and confirmation searched the Scriptures daily to see whether they testified the same point and this one point of our Saviours comming being clearly in Scripture perhaps St. Paul might bid them search in such and such texts for it These words we must take great notice of what motives they were he doth not expresse but such it seems as upon which many thousands did recieve it whose proceedings you can never prove lesse laudable than the Beroeans But this his parenthesis does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He might have left it out better For why then are these Beroeans commended If there was not in them somewhat of excellent ingenuity why are they commended for this that they received the word with all chearfulnesse searching the Scriptures daily Doth not this belong also to their commendation that they searched the Scriptures daily Nay it may be further if we may have leave to be critical their receiving of the word with all chearfulnesse was concurrent with the searching of the Scriptures daily and so the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken per modum medii whereby they came to embrace the word the use of Participles is not it may be infrequent in this sense However it is not comely for him when the Scripture doth give a reputation and honor to these Beroeans to equalize many thousands to them But we must a little more reflect upon his words Motives these Beroeans had proposed by St. Paul before they searched the Scriptures But what motives That is not expressed by St. Paul nor indeed that they had any Well but we give it that they had motives And if the authority of the Church had been one of those motives my Adversary would not have omitted it And yet also we can grant motives before the resolution of faith So that those Beroeans might have motives and yet not believe before the searching of the Scriptures But this how loath is he to come to that they did search the Scriptures as in order to believing Therefore he doth substitute other ends of their searching of the Scriptures namely for their comfort and confirmation What For their comfort and confirmation and not for their faith But if the searhing of the Scriptures be of use to our comfort and confirmation then also to our faith but not to beget it it may be No As in naturalls so in spirituals we may be said to be nourished by
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
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
uni tantum aut alteri populo proponuntur in particular judgements and in precepts of manners which are not proposed to the whole Church but to one or another people he saies they may erre in the same Chap. but so may not Scripture therefore can they not receive the vulgar edition absolutely as the first Church did receive the Original Copies so that either my Adversary hath overshot or the Cardinal under and if they will have nothing to do with him that in any title importing Faith or Manners differ from them then they have many to excommunicate on Munday Thursday though they absolve them again on Good Friday as they do the King of Spain for detaining part of St. Peters Patrimony And as for the other exception I made against the vulgar by the varieties of the Edition of Sixtus 5tus and clement the 8th he refers me to a Famous Book called Charity maintained written against Dr. Potter See it Part 2. c. b. n. 3. as I take it in his Copy but he saves me the labour in telling me the effect of it thus That by Authentical testimonies of persons beyond all exception is shewed there that the decree of Sixtus 5tus about his Edition was never promulgated and that he had declared divers things to have crept in which needed a second revew and that the whole work should be re-examined though he could not do it being prevented by death Ans according to their principles no Authentique testimony but of a Council confirm'd by the Pope let them shew such And then we say Secondly what if the decree of Sixtus 5tus was not promulg'd was not this Sixtus 5tus's Edition And it seems there was a decree for it but not promulg'd and the promulgation makes it but legible the decree I hope makes it credible the promulgation attends the binding of it in actu exercito but the decree attends the constitution of it in actu signato And was there no error in it because it was not promulgated Or rather was not it therefore not promulgated because there was error in it Thirdly the Authority of the Trent Council was ingaged rather for this than for that of Clement the 8th for the Trent Council as they know speaks of it as in verbis de presenti haec ipsa vetus vulgata editio quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesiâ probata est this very same old and vulgar edition which by long use of so many ages is approved in the very Church as if it had been so long before born and now when it was of age should be onely Christen'd Fourthly How did divers things creep in which needed a second review what while the Church slept then how can we believe the Church in tradition and purity of Copies for she may sleep while they are stolen or corrupted Therefore have they no cause to triumph that Mr. Chillingworth hath said nothing to this point in defence of Docter Potter as they say in the following words For if the Citation be right Part 2. Mr. Chillingworth did not publish for ought I knew what he had against the second part And he gives an account thereof why he did not in the latter end of his Answer to the 1 part p. 390. And therfore they did not ingenuously charge him with this omission since it was forborne in the whole upon ingenious reasons And if they thinke to save themselves because Sixtus his decree was not published surely Mr. Chillingworth may be excused because the second Part of his Answer was not published However he had said enough against the perfection of the Vulgar translation in his answer to the first part 77. Even upon the opinion of their own men Lyranus Cajetan Pagini◠Arias Erasmus Valla Steuchus who in many places have rejected it and differed from it And to these he adds the judgement of Vega who was present at the Council and was instructed therein by the President of the Council the Cardinal S. Cruce as he saies and of Dredo and Mariana who had the opinion of Laines in it the General then of the society and in a sort of Bellarmine also But also if they might boast of not being answered in one point then some body might boast that they have given Treaties for Answers Lastly will they be confident that the decree was not published for the authority of the vulgar edition why then doth it go under the name of Sixtus 5us's Bible yea also Dr. Iames who hath written Bellum Papale to such a purpose in his third part 36. p. hath asserted that all the shifts they have made herein will not serve For both Bull and Bibles are in many mens hands whatsoever Gretser saith to the Contrary This Paragraph might have been spared N. 37. and I might be excused surely for sparing it it gives me a former reason why my two places out of St. Austin are not answered he tells me that I have given him leave to have no more to do with the Fathers This is his reason and my reason is because he will have more to do than he can do to answer them We deny not a tryal by the Fathers though their Judgement be not infallible and since we produce the Fathers for us we are bound to answer them against us as contrarily if they produce them against us they are bound to answer them against themselves and this is a rule of Reason Testem quem quis adducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se the witness which one brings for himself he is bound to receive against himself And therefore whatsoever Coccius saies ad faciendum populum we may I think say well as Nilus did in his first book of Ecclesiastical dissentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is altogether absurd that those who have not the Fathers for their examples should of themselves discern that which is better and that we who have the Fathers should not so neither understand So he of the Romans also so that my Adversary should not have stopt this gap with an exception against my opposing of the Council of Ariminum to the Nicene Council towards proving the contradiction and consequently the fallibility of Councils but this he hath nothing new to say against and therefore I have nothing to answer more then formerly onely he chides me because I proposed the Council of Ariminum as if it had been a lawful Council and so would deceive the people which knoweth not which councils be lawful which not No This spoyles all infallibility is in Councils the people do not know which are right councils and those that are not right are not and where then shall the people find their infallibility where the way so plain that Fooles cannot err as they have told us It is better to be without a guide than to have one we cannot trust So we bid the Roman people good night and take our leaves of this number N. 38. But this
so they must at length rest in our Principles In this num beside somewhat in the beginning N. 48. answered before he would very fain repair the credit of the vulgar Latin which I had broken by an instance of Gen. 3.15 where it reads ipsa for ipsum referring to the Mother what belongs to the Son To this he saies It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be translated ipsum How know you the Church followed the false Hebrew copie Satis caute Some copies Not all May be Not are Most exactly be translated not some most exact copies Well Are not these copies the greater number And indeed are they not the most exact yea can they truly be translated otherwise and how know they that their Church followed the true Hebrew copie If it did not follow it infallibly or if they cannot know infallibly that it did follow it infallibly infallibly they are undone because they are upon terms of an infallible faith in an infallible Church Therefore though we can shake their foundation by our question they cannot settle their foundation by their question And yet we have another question He asks again How many most grave and most antient Fathers have also read ipsa Surely he does well to ask how many because he does not know how few Their names may they not be written in a nut shel and Bellarmin upon the place hath not many for it And some of them surely not most grave and also most ancient Fathers But as for St. Austin Bellarmin might as well or better have left him out of the Catalogue For though he renders it ipsa in his 11. de Gen. ad literam c. 36. and in another place yet he doth not expound it as they of the Virgin for he makes it to be mystically understood Significatur semine diaboli perversa semine autem mulieris fructus boni operis illa observat caput ejus ut eum in ipso initio malae suasionis excludat He might also have omitted St. Ambrose in his 2. b. de fuga saeculi cap. 7. for there he interprets it morally not referring it to the Virgin And both of them also differ from the Hebrew and their vulgar in the other words and follow the Septuagint For they translate it ipsa servabit caput tuum which doth not agree with the Hebrew with which the vulgar in this doth agree But Bellarmine also nameth St. Chrysostom in his 17. homily upon Gen. But then they must have some other edition of him if they will make use of his testimony for them For in three places of this homily he renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which he would think it may be to be for this use is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And not her alone the woman but I will make her seed to be a perpetual enemy to thy seed Yet upon this he doth immediately subjoyne the text as before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Bellarmin doth not yet bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed all they can do is much too little to cure this breach For S. Ierom is more considerable in this criticism than all the Fathers named And he saies melius in Hebraeo ipse conteret caput tuum Nay Bellarmin in the place quoted by him saith he had seen one copy he speaks of no more as he would surely if he had could and yet doth not tell us where So that to speak at least de communi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this reading ipsa is not agreeable to the Hebrew copies Nay Bellarmin doth sweat at it and therefore saies some copies of the vulgar Latin do interpret it ipse in the former Chap. And this makes a new difficulty on their part to reconcile the contrariety to the infallibility of the Church in both The Church was deceived in one and where then is their infallibility they speak of This is their modesty then against the gender in the Hebrew against the Samaritan Syriack Arabick translations which referre it to the seed against all Hebrew copies which Bellarmin had seen but one against some of their own copies of the vulgar Latin to make that Scripture for the Creature which belongs to the Son of God And also whether the Fathers most grave and most antient are for their interpretation we have examined and therefore he needed not be so plain as to say it was a loud lie of Chemnitius to say the contrary And will they say so to Lucas Brugensis who saies as much as Chemnitius in this point almost all the Fathers do read ipse as is noted Let me then say it would become them here to give glory to Christ immediately and to confess this fault And yet neither doth he competently answer to the question made to him why the Greek was not made infallibly the Church as well as the Latin That we have his declaration that the Latin vulgar is authentique and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners this he saies but this will not serve as may appear thus A translation of that which is not authentique cannot be authentique now let them determine whether it was made authentique or not If not made authentique being a translation as they say then how can the Latin be so declared an authentique translation for then the Church must have vim operativam too not onely declaratory and the effect shall exceed the material cause Or if it was declared authentique what of an infallible translation 2. Whereas he saies therefore it is not deficient in any point necessarie to faith and manners To wit the Latin translation we take notice of it that these words have a sense in them intended for their use namely not to be understood absolutely as if there were no error at all therein but restrictively specificatively no such errour but that it may be sufficient to direct us in faith and manners So then when he hath made use of his own words for his own turne we will make use of them for our purpose and we will not squeese them neither The first corollarie then from these words of his is this that he dares not stand to an absolute infallibilitie of the Church in every point whatsoever and therefore by Mr. Knott's argument he must abate of his former postulate of it's being the ground and cause of faith 2. Thus much we may as well or better say for our translation that it is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners 3. It semes then salvation is not in danger by some errours otherwise their translation should be deficent in points necessarie to faith and manners and therefore we need not upon danger of salvation have an infallible Judge to decide all points emergent 4. Things necessarie to faith and manners are sufficiently set down in scripture for otherwise the Latin translation must be deficient or else it must have more then the
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.
Scripture than for any thing else But then I deny the minor the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility is not worthy of an infallible assent It may be worthy of the highest degree of moral assurance yet not of an iâ—fal ible assent No Authority can write as to Conscience what a king writes as to civil credit teste me ipso but that which is immediatly divine And why then do the Pontificians prove the Authority of the Church by Scripture The Church without Scripture is not yet Christned if we take Scripture for the substance of the matter it will be but the highest form of Heathens And therefore the Scripture is to be believed antecedently to the Church And how little his examples have proved the minor we have seen even as much as he had cause to conclude against me out of my own words thus Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten is of equal Authority to Scripture The Traditions we stand upon be matters of Faith truly once delivered by our Saviour or his Apostles though the Revelation were not written by them therefore this is of equal Authority to Scripture even according to your own words Surely it is easier to answer this than to forbear the Person The proposition was not my words I hope categorically spoken but as being the state of the question if those Traditions be in the matter beside Scripture And now he takes this to be my affirmation simply And then we deny his minor too because that which they stand upon is not matter of Faith as being not revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles or truly delivered by either for they are uncertain by which And if they will urge that Text St. Iohn the 16.22 as Bellarmin does they may think that many things might be written afterwards or were not points of Faith And this Text hereticks have urged and therefore by my Adversaries Logique he should not And did St. Austin think that any could soberly say that the points of difference were of that number Or did any of the Saints in Heaven see what they were in speculo Trinitatis and did send down word thereof As for his defence of the exception which he took against the Scriptures being a sufficient rule to us N. 15. because neither the Apostles nor their Successours took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages as all or the greater part of them could understand my answer is yet good the care was taken in that the new Testament was written in Greek which was a common language then And this I gave an Argument of in that the Grecian is contradistinguished to the Jew in the New Testament And therefore the Greek must be the greatest and most famous part and therefore the language common this proof he is not pleased to meddle with at all Another proof that that was the common Language was that of Tully for Archias the Poet Graeca per totum orbem leguntur This he takes notice of And he saies and so is Virgil in Latin But this doth not contradict me yea he gives me a corroboration of my Argument for whom did Virgil imitate Theocritus in his Eglogues Hesiod in his Georgicks Homer in his Aeneids Yea Horace had read the Greeks it seems by his Grecisms Yea Terence was so conversant in Menander that he was called Menander dimidiatus But he saies This is to be understood thus that the most learned sort of men every where read Greek and Virgil. Ans This supposed is not exclusive to the Greeks being the common Language as to others since he will think the Latin was common to the people then and yet the most learned read Virgil. And did not all those Nations whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles to understand Greek Did he write onely to the most learned In what Language was the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Hebrews for the Roman Church confesseth that this Epistle also was written by St. Paul written were they not both written in Greek yea the Jews that used the Septuagint Translation were many So Philo the Jew and Marcus Antonius the Roman wrote in Greek And therefore that which was spoken by the Oratour was spoken without any such Hyperbole He saies yet further either this must be spoken in way of a notable amplification or Scripture must be denied because even between the two Cities of Antioch and Constantinople the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus Cappadocia Asia minor Phrygia Pamphilia all which Nations the Scripture Act. 2. testifieth to have had different Languages Ans Though the Scripture speaks of them as distinguished in speech yet not in Language but dialect and so it is expressed ver 6.8 And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be restrained as to those who had several dialects therefore whereas he saies the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus c. If he means that the common Dialect of the Greek was not used by them all this is not much to be stood upon because it is not reasonable to say that those who spake several Dialects did not understand the common Greek for take them all Attique Jonique Dorique Aeolique and Baeotique they differ ordinarily but in terminations or pronunciation from the common Within that compass is also Galatia which St. Jerom testifieth to have had a language somwhat like those of Trevers An. It is as farre from Thebes to Athens as from Athens to Thebes is it not Then that of Trevers must be as neer that of greek as that of the Galatians which was greek in St. Pauls time If afterwards the language altered or was corrupted this doth not contradict us because we must distinguish times And therefore yet it remains good that the greek was understood of the greater part of the world and therefore the Apostles took care to have the knowledge of the Gospel to be commonly understood And if they had not God did miraculously by the gift of the Holy Ghost sub forma visibili in the second of the Acts in the gift of tongues And this concludes against their Latin service as also St. Paul discourseth and concludeth against it in the first Ep. Cor. 14. And though we cannot tell the time when the Scripture can first be shewed to have been thus communicated to the people of severall languages what is this to the purpose If it had not been done afterwards it is enough to us that the Apostles did write in the most common language for those times And if it had not been done it should have been done But that it was done appears seasonably in the great Bible Neither can they tell us or will when the vulgar Latin began first to be Authentique whether under Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth In the beginning he tells me that I moved a question how the people should clearly know the true Tradition from the false Ans I did
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
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