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
your self See how you now differ from your selfe Before the ground of Believing was the authority of the Church now the authority of God revealing the cause of their belief Before you concluded Faith consisted in submitting the understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it now it is the authority of God revealing which causes their faith to be Divine As for the term thus the formal object is such under which and in respect whereunto any thing proceedeth if then Gods Revelation cometh not to us under the Proposal of the Church or as proposed by the Church then the cause is lost if it doth then grant me my term and affirm with me that the Pontificians hold so If not they are better then you And what means else their implicite faith unlesse we are to believe every thing as the Church believeth it and because the Church proposeth it as you said and if we be to beleive every thing as the Church believe it then is the Church the formal object of their faith since they are also bound not to doubt but simply to obey as Bellarmine tells us in his fourth Book of the Roman Bishop 5. chap. The other term you find fault with is excesse of faith You taxe it as improperly spoken But surely it will passe without any Grain of Salt or of allowance if we consider that Faith may be compared as to a particular object and so there is not an Excesse of Faith as to that but then it may be compared as to many objects and so though we do not more believe one thing then we should if we should indeed believe it yet may we believe more then we should If we believe those things which are not at all to be believed And thus if we should believe whatsoever the Church of Rome proposeth we might be destroyed for excesse of Faith The Church of Rome is peccant in excesse of Faith by believing more points then it should believe and this is the reason why our Divinity is in negatives as to differences with them because their Divinity in differences to us is in additions SIR If you will excuse me for being so long I shall now conclude with the whole conclusion of Saint Austin whereof you gave me but part Against Reason no Sober Man will go against Scriptures no Christian then Christians should go by Scriptures against the Church no Peace-maker The Roman Catholick's first Treatise How in these times in which there be so many Religious the true Religion may certainly be found out The Preface THE Romane Catholicks have often foretold that by permitting freely to all sorts of people whatsoever the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother Tongue multitudes of New Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberless Number and as for the Peoples Manners they would daily grow worse and worse How true this is let the world judge That then which now mainly imports is to distinguish the true Religion from so many false ones This is my Aim To effect this I did write a short Paper shewing the Catholick Church so to teach the infallible way to Salvation which is to be obtained onely in the true faith that we cannot have as things stand any other Assurance to ground our faith upon securely I did never deny that when by the Infallible Authority of the Church we are secured that the Scriptures be the word of God we cannot believe such things as are clearly contained in the Scripture for so I should deny that I could not believe that to be infallibly true which upon an Infallible ground I believed to be Gods own word But I did and still do maintain that no man can have Infallible ground to believe the Scriptures now but he who first believeth that which the Church teacheth to be infallibly true Whence it will follow that his faith must needs now at the first be grounded upon the Revelation of Gods truth made by God to us by his Church and not by his written word The Papers I did write to this Effect have been answered by some truly Learned Scholar so that I hope so worthy a Man will not reject such a Reply as may seem to be as clear a Demonstration as any wise Man can hope for in this Matter And such a Demonstration I hope by Gods grace to make whilst I endevour to make good the Title prefixed to this Paper which Title I now add to shew that my chief drift is to guide a Soul redeemed by Christs blood to that happy eternity to which we cannot attain unless in all doubtful Controversies of faith we follow the Catholick Church as an Infallible Judge in all those Controversies we being obliged under pain of damnation not to dis-believe this Judge And whilst I demonstrate this I do demonstrate my former Position That the Infallible Authority of the Catholick Church is the Ground of our faith And also going on with this Demonstration I will leave nothing of Concernment unanswered in the Reply made and thus I will conclude contradictorily to the said Reply which a little after the beginning denyeth The Authority of the Catholick Church to be the Ground of faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertained of the minde of God I answer not the Reply just in the Order that my Answer was returned for so I should be over-long I use this way of a little Treatise to prove my Title for thus all will be more clear and less tedious In the Conclusion I shew all the parts of the Reply to have been fully answered in this Discourse The Proof of the Title St. Anselme hath a very fit Similitude to express how much a Contentious Spirit in disputing doth blind the understanding from seeing the Manifest Truth He sayeth that a little before Sun-rising two men in the fields did fall into a hot debate concerning that place of the Heavens in which the Sun was that day to rise the one pointing out one part of the Heavens the other another They passed so far in their Contention that falling together by the Ears they both pulled out one anothers Eyes and so when the Sun by and by after did rise neither of them both could see a thing so clear as was the place of the Sun rising To our purpose Because Zeal in Religion is accounted laudable and also because prejudice caused by Education in such or such a Religion is a thing exceedingly swaying us to our own side we are commonly apt to grow into so hot a debate in disputations about Religion that I may freely say This Passion hindreth many thousands from seeing that clear Sun-shine of Truth which men of mean Capacity would clearly behold if setting all passion and prejudice aside they did with a Calm and humble Mind beg of God to give them this grace of seeking Truth with all sincerity for then he who should seek should find This is proved manifestly
either abstractly from the speaker or complexely with the speaker in the former it is considered with respect to the matter and so he said well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are not to look at so much the author as the matter in the latter respect it is respective to the motive and so I am more induced by the Church though not determined And therfore as to those termes to whose saying you would give an infallible assent when you see that which he saith to be conformable to Scripture we say that the termâ— saying is distinguishable into the object purely or into the object with the act and authour In the former there is no difference in the latter there is we may believe that which is said when we do not believe him that saies it And so may we believe rather the Church whose office it is to propose truth as he confesseth it is not the Divells Neither did we by these answers smother up any thing which clearly overthroweth our replie who say we must follow the Church onely so far as we see her follow Scripture That which he saith here doth no way weaken our replie It hath been answered before and the strength of it broken For first though they could not see at all how far the Church followed the Scripture for the first two thousand years and the barbarous Nations never having seen the Scripture did truely believe doth this hinder us from holding now that we are to believe the Church in points of faith no further then we see grounds for what they said out of Scripture take it of faith divine and in things of faith it is yet good And their instances do not evacuate it Distingue tempora distinguish the times God might in that time and season of immediate revelation work then a faith immediately which now is not reasonable to expect ordinarily as appears by the first Chap. of the Ep. to the Hebrews the first ver Privilegia paucâ—rum non faciunt regulam communem Secondly the Faith of the barbarous nations was not terminated in the Church as if they had believed the Church and therefore believed that which was said by them But was terminated in the matter which was said by the Church The Church was instrumental to the knowledge of the matter and might be instrumental as to dispose them for faith But the authority of the Church was not the formal cause of the act of faith And Knotts himself is loath to assert it And this is that which Tertullian hath said non ex persona fides sed ex fide persona aestimanda est We are not to esteem the doctrine by the person but the person by the doctrine And the tradition which St. Irenaeus speaks of was the sum of the Christian Faith which is in Scripture So he as before and so St. Cyril of Hierusalem vnderstands it as may appear by that of Cyril in his fourth Catech. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not deliver any thing in the divine and holy mysteries of faith without the divine Scriptures This is the Epilogue of the Chap. and is of use onely to tell me what he hath done I think not done before N. 38. and this is all the answer he gives me for taking away what he had said out of two places of Scripture forementioned towards infallibility Before he referred me for satisfaction to the due place here he referrs me back again And as for any reply to my answer out of the Fathers or my use of them he saies to me you know why I resolve to pass them Yes particularly why he saies nothing more to what I said about St. Austins testimony in his Epistle against the Manichee If I may be interpreter it is thus resolved he had good reason to pass them because they pass him And so we have made an end of his long but not hard Chapter CHAP. V. No Church is our Iudge infallible then not the Roman This Chapter which concerns the Hypothesis should injustice have been longer but he reduceth the proof of it to a small pittance and if all the Churches which submit not themselves to the Bishop of Rome as their supreme Pastour be of no better proportion it will be Catholick for all that do submit but not for all But since he is so short in this we will be even with him and bring all he saies in this second Treatise for so some times he calles it into one Syllogism the Church is the Judge infallible appointed in businesses of Religion No other but the Roman is this Church therefore To the proposition we have said enough before He would now make good the assumption or praesumption as we might speak supposing the proposition to be demonstrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he quarrels with me because we except against his supsition of it It is true had the major been a maxim irrefragable then there had been more reason to blame us for exception against it and for not applying our selves in present address to the minor but since we see no cause nor the Churches of God why the proposition should be swallowed we call upon him to make good the thesis that there is a Church appointed as infallible Judge in businesses of Religion and therefore we told him that he might as well prove he had right to Utopia because he only claimes it whereas he should first prove the An sit whether there be such a place And therefore if he would have had us say nothing to the questioning of the supposition he should have made it stronger first and then should not have concluded bravingly that therefore all he had said of the Church was to be applied to the Roman no other being infallible as in the former treatise num 28 Well but he must prove his minor N. 2. because all other Churches do not lay claime to this infallibility and are demonstrated to be fallible we grant the Antecedent without any proof and his proof was not so good as his proposition But therefore it belongs to them to be infallible we deny the consequence We deny the Title upon the claime And he is angry because we make his plea from the claim to be weak And the weaknes of it appeares in that it is weaker grounded upon a true supposition nor is it very sound in the proceeding of the consequence in the first regard we say debile fundamentum fallit opus And therefore since that is one of his principles his conclusion must be naught as before His consequence he proveth thus the Protestant Chucrh and all other Churches different from the Roman do Iudge themselves acknowledge themselves declare and profess themselves to be fallible and that according to infallible Scripture If then any of these Churches be infallible in what they Iudge and declare for truth grounded in Scripture they are infallible in this their Iudging and declaring themselves to be fallible therefore infallibly they
faith but only Opinion or humane belief ANSVVER THe Paper may be resolved into a Supposition and a Reason and a Conclusion To these in order First The Supposition It is not sufficient to make one a Catholick that he believe the same things that a Catholick doth believe unless the Catholick Church be the Ground also of his belief c. as in the Amplification of it This Supposition is indeed the main Position of the Pontificians and that which is formally Constitutive of them in that Denomination so that the Answer to it is not made as to a private Opinion or the Opinion of a private Man but as to the General Tenet of their Church in the matter of it In the Terms the word Catholick is to be distinguished for if they mean thereby such an one as they account a Catholick viz. one subject to the Church of Rome upon its own Authority It is very true that None is such a Catholick but he that shall render his belief to them in all things upon this their Proposal and so whatsoever is the Material Object of their faith yet the Formal Object is the Definition of the Church of Rome But if there be a true Sense upon ancient Account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church then there may be in a true sense a Catholick now who doth not make the Church the last Resolutive of faith For where the Scripture was acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners also there the Authority of the Church was not the Determinative thereof And that it was will be made good if it be desired by several Testimonies But secondly give it suppose it that None is a Catholick in a right sense but he that believeth what the Church believeth because the Church believeth it yet the Romane will not gain his purpose thereby unless we would grant this Supposition also That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church which indeed is meant in the Paper though wisely not expressed But this supposition that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church is not to be yielded neither in regard of Comprehension for that makes a contradiction nor in regard of Dominion neither for other Churches have not submitted themselves to their Authority this needs no disproof from us till it hath a proof from them And thirdly If we should stand up to all that their Church in particular doth propose and if we should assent to it upon their Account we might be damned not for our want of faith but for Excess of faith in the Object Material and for the Error of faith in the Formal Object For we should believe more then is true if we should believe whatsoever they believe and somewhat also destructive of Articles in the Apostles Creed And we should also believe upon the wrong Inductive which is not the Authority of their Church as we may see now in the Answer to the Reason The Reason hath in it somewhat true somewhat false True that faith is to believe a thing because God revealeth it False that there is no Infallible way without a Miracle of his Revelation coming to us but by their Church which they suppose to be the Church its Proposition For if the question be This how shall we come to know whether the Church of Rome be the right Church upon the Authority whereof we must ground our faith Wherein shall we terminate our belief hereof In the Authority of the Church of Rome or not We are to believe that they say which God hath revealed but the Cause of our belief must be because the Church proposeth it So then we must believe the Church of Rome upon her own testimony and we must resolve all into this that the Church of Rome is the right Church although it be neither a Revelation nor a natural Principle such as this that The Whole is greater then the Part which indeed gave the Occasion of that Check which was given to Rome Greater is the Authority of the world then of a City Orbis quam Urbis S. Jerom. in Ep. ad Evagrium Wherefore if the faith of a Catholick must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it as is said in the Conclusion yet it is not necessary that this Church should be the Church of Rome For this in proportion would be to resolve our Perswasions into the Judgment of particular Men because a Particular Church which according to the Paper makes no Catholick faith but an Opinion or humane belief REPLY IN the Paper received the Position which I gave It is not sufficient c. is disliked because it makes the Catholick Church the Ground of our belief but in truth I find no reason given for such dislike or any thing said against it but what to me seems very strange and is this If there be a true sense upon ancient account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church c. To which I answer that I would fain know what Catholick upon ancient Account did not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable Contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Church S. Iren. l. 3. c. 4. saith We ought not to seek among others the truth which we may easily take and receive from the Church seeing that the Apostles have most fully laid up in her as into a rich Treasure-house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept all things which are of truth that every man that will may take out of her the drink of life For this is the Entrance of life but all the rest are Thieves and Robbers for which cause they are verily to be avoyded But those things which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loved and the tradition of truth is to be received And the said Iren. l. 1. c. 3. telleth us that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence the Apostles faith and that which they preached S. Cypr. Ep. ad Cornel. avoucheth that the Church alwayes holdeth that which she first knew See also his Ep. 69. ad Florentium And S. Aug. had so great an Estimation of the Church that he sticked not to say cont Ep. Manich. quam vocant Fundamentum c. 5. I would not believe the Gospel except the Authority of the Church did move me thereunto Moreover disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptism of Hereticks l. 1. cont Cresc he useth this discourse Although of this that the baptisme of Hereticks is true baptism there be no certain Example brought forth out of the Canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keep the truth of the said Scriptures when as we do that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the Authority of the Scriptures themselves doth commend That
and not private Spirit which I can esteem no better then a fantastical if not a fanatical Opinion and is Diametrically opposite to the words of the second of St. Peter 1.20 No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation And all this spoken here and in the Position c. of the Church is meant of such a Church as does truely deserve the name of Catholick and so it will appear that all the discourse in this paper I received of the Roman Church considered as a Particular Church or any other Particular Church is but Impertinent and Extravagant Now also I must assure the Answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome the formal Object of their Faith as he doth impose upon them for they acknowledge that to be the Revelation of God or the authority of God revealing which causes their Belief to the Supernatural and Divine and not onely Natural and Humane as is the Belief that there is such a City as Rome or that there is a William the Conquerour c. which kind of faith is All that Hereticks have and All such as do not ground their Belief upon the Authority of the Church I cannot also but observe in the received paper that it is improperly enough called Excess of faith as it is there opposed to want of faith to believe more then Necessary for the Number of things believed does not alter the Nature of faith it self And lastly I must tax him of false alledging the words in the Reason thus there is no infallible way without a Miracle of his Gods Revelation coming to us but by their Church whereas in the Paper delivered it is the Church abstracting from all Particular Churches and meaning the true Church which soever it is And this is done but to make way for that needless Excursion which there follows THE REJOYNDER SIR THere is no great reason for me to rejoyn First because you wave the Application of your Discourse as to the Roman Church which is not ordinary for those of your Profession when they speak highly of the Catholique Church Secondly Because I may let you alone to answer the first paper with your second as to the main of it Thirdly Because the greatest part of it hath one fault not to conclude contradictorily Yet in Christian respects to Truth and You I shall endeavour meekly some return to your Reply and to differ as little as may be from you I shall mostly follow your own Order In the beginning you dislike my dislike of the ground of Faith without giving you any Reason Answer I intended my answer as near as I could guesse to the design of your paper for the Roman Church by Obedience to the Bishop whereof Bellarmine in his Catechism Englished p. 65. 6 7. doth describe the Catholique Church You will excuse me then if I took the course to make my answer compendiously sufficient to that drift if you will hold with Papists herein And if you would confesse you meant the Roman Church by the Catholique then I have given you such a Reason against your Position as you will say nothing to And you may consider that you directed your paper as to a Protestant who is not contradistinguished to a Catholique but to a Papist if you be a Papist why doe you dissemble it to me If you be not why do we dispute And this Apology may be enough also to refute all your Objections against me of impertinencies and excursions and untrue Allegations if you will take notice also of my Parenthesis And now my Reason intimated in a promise shall be made good in performance And since you will in the question about the Catholique Church abstract from the Roman and all other particulars I shall give some account of Catholiques who did not make the authority of the Catholique Church the ground and cause of their Beleef whereby onely God his Revelation cometh to us infallibly as you expresse your self in your first paper but this Prerogative they ascribed to the Holy Scripture to be it wherein and whereby we are infallibly assured of Gods Will as to what we should beleeve and do in order to salvation That the authority of the Catholique Church is of use towards Faith we deny not but the cause and ground of Faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertaind of the mind of God is not the Proposition of the Church but the Word of God And such being the state of the question betwixt us I shall for your shower of authorities you say you could power out against me give you or shew you a cloud of witnesses as the Apostle speaks Hebr. 12.1 against you Your shower could not wet me through but this cloud may direct you home This Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Church and Scriptures as you may see by the 8.19 20 21. Articles and therefore it is not my Opinion will appear not to be new but agreeable to ancient Catholiques in your own esteem The first shall be Saint Irenaeus Have you appealed to Saint Irenaeus unto Saint Irenaeus shall you goe He in his third book first chapter first words thus We have not known the disposing of our salvation by any other then those by whom the Gospel came to us which then indeed they preached afterwards delivered it to us in the Scriptures by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith So he Now that which is delivered in Scripture by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of Faith is the ground and cause of our Faith And such is the Gospel according to this Testimony The next for us is Clemens Alexandrinus in the seventh of his Stromata towards the end in the 757. p. of the Greek and Latine Edition He which is to be believed by himself reasonably is worthy to be believed by the Lords Scripture and Voice working by the Lord inwardly to the benefit of men So he Then according to him the Holy Scripture is not worthy to be beleeved by men but men are worthy of beleef by it And therefore that must ground our Faith because it is it whereby we beleeve others And therefore he saith in the following words Surely we use it as the Criterium for finding out of things And therefore points are to be decided and determined by authority of it which is his chief discourse against Heretiques even to the end of that book And if you please to peruse and consider it you shall find there that in his judgement the Catholique Church which he also there commends doth not conserve it self in that denomination by its own authority but by the Rule of Scripture Now that which rules the whole rules the parts the Scripture rules the whole then us So Origen upon Saint Matthew Hom. 25. We ought not therefore for confirmation of Doctrine to swear our own apprehensions and to bring into witnesse those which every one of us doth
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
be intended to that purpose since also the words do in short fully represent the office of the Church the intention of the passage must be gathered by the scope according to the rule of the Schoolman Intelligentia dicti colligitur ex scopo loquendi Now the drift of Saint Paul was to instruct him how he should carry himself in the Church Was it reasonable then he should have account of the Church in the priviledges of it or in the duty thereof which is to hold forth and uphold truth For if the Infallibility of the Church were here affirmed then needed he not to have such instructions to take care how he behaved himself in the Church Since Infallible assistance is immediate and that which is immediate includes no time for the inspiration nor means of instruction therefore had your Roman Church been real in the asserting of Infallibility it had not needed eighteen years for the sitting of the Trent Council with Intermissions nor more for the consultation whether there should be any As for that which comes next of Athanasius it was in part answered before the Argument is this the Consubstantiality of the Son is by Athanasius after the determination of the Nicene Council called that Word of God by the Nicene Council which remaineth for ever and ever And this is no where clearly said in Scripture therefore somewhat which is not clearly said in Scripture may by a Council be determined to be the Word of God To this we answer we may grant you all of the Syllogism and yet nothing accrews to you if the words by the Nicene Council be understood ministerially to Scripture which they were bound to declare the sense of as to that point and so it did not binde with relation to their Authority but by Authority of Scripture which they declared the mind of in that case And therefore though so we grant the Argument yet do we deny your Consequence which you would make of it in your sense that the Church is infallible in the definitions of it since that which was defined was indeed Infallible and yet was not Infallibly defined for though the Council did not erre in that definition yet it might have erred and if it did not erre in that yet it might erre in other definitions and therefore can we not without suspense intuitively receive what they propose as the Word of God which is by you yet to be proved For secondly That which they have the Principles and Grounds of Scripture for it is more easie for them rightly to define in the Application of those principles unto particular cases as they had for that question about the Consubstantiality of the Son as Saint John the 10.30 I and my Father are one not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one Person but one in Nature but as for those questions whereof the solution is not so principled in Scripture as being not so necessary to be held on either part we cannot expect so likely a determination and yet if probable we cannot from thence urge it as an object of Faith That which is in Scripture according to equivalence of sense as that point is we may better credit upon account of Scripture then that which the ignorance of doth not damn since the Scripture gives us no moments of knowledge how to order our assent affirmatively or negatively in that But thirdly Saint Athanasius did not ground his Faith in the affirmative of that question upon the authority of the Nicene Council because he held it before the Council had determined it and therefore the cause of his Faith herein was not the authority of the Council And if that Council of Nice was to be believed for it selfe without respect to the matter as depending upon Scripture why not the Council of Ariminum to the contrary and therefore Saint S. Austin would refer it to Scripture betwixt him Maximinus a Bishop of the Arrians since the Councils was contrary And if any exception could have been made against the Council of Ariminum as towards the denial of such authority of it as is due to other Councils had it not been easie for the Father to have held the Doctrine upon the Authority of the Council of Nice though the other had been rejected In your 23. Number you do not fairly render my Answer I did not say that Christ would not be at all with his Church to the end of the world but it is not necessarily there meant that he would be with them unto the end of the world as he was with the Apostles by Infallible assistance so he did not promise he would be with the Successours of the Apostles And therefore if this be a simple mistake it is a fallacy a dicto secundum quid if you intended a slander it is worse Infallible assistance is not there promised and therefore the promise may be made good without it Neither was there such need of Infallible assistance whatsoever you say because the rule of Faith and Manners was to be determined in the Scripture which is the Infallible Word of God So that although they who followed the Apostles in the governance of the Church had been so disposed for Infallible assistance as the Apostles yet had there not been that use of the assistance Infallible but having not that disposition thereunto they wanted a condition and qualification for such assistance And God did not give an Infallible assistance to the Apostles because they were disposed for that gift of Infallibility but rather gave them that disposition that so they might be fitted for that Infallibility And so if he had intended such a measure of the Spirit to the Successors of the Apostles as to them he could have made them as capable thereof As for your Reason which you mention of leaving as secure direction for them who followed because the further we go from Christs time the more we are subject to uncertainty about his Doctrine therefore there is as much yea far more reason of this secure direction I answer You do not well consider what you say For if we be more subject to uncertainties the further we goe from Christ his time then cannot you urge the credit of those Traditions now equally to the certainty of them then supposing that there were any of Faith not written Secondly this Reason would be none if men would be guided by Scripture which hath now the same certainty as ever This is a Rule which will with equal infallibility hold at all times and unto which we are all equally obliged Again you would argue that the Church is secure from damnable errour because Christ promised to be with it to the end of the world and he is not with those who live in damnable errour But what is this to me you may conclude thus and yet not against me if you speak of damnable errour specificatively for if you mean it reduplicatively that all errour is damnable
that the invisible Church shall not perish which is true although the visible Church be under a possibilitie to erre since every errour is not destructive of salvation In the 25. Number you tell me what you have said before but that you have given me some additional Testimonies in the supplement of the last which have their answer without repetition Onely you no where I think find that Saint Jerome did receive all those books which you receive for Canonical and for those Authours which held the Consubstantiality of the Son and those several properties of the Holy Trinity you will give me leave with judicious men to suspect Eusebius Beleeve your Cardinal herein Bellarmin in his De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis p. 94.5 6. where he brings the attestation of Saint Athanasius and Saint Jerome to the same purpose and Saint Jerome calls him not onely an Arrian but the Prince of the Arrians sometimes sometimes the Ensign-bearer Yea the 7. Synod he sayes and the Apostolical Legats rejected his authority as being an Arrian Heretique as he saies And as for Austins expression that the relying on the Church's authority is the most true and inviolable Rule of Faith you refer it to your 16. Number and there referre me to the 13. chapter of the first book Contra Cresconium which I cannot see there If it should be so disertly yet this must be understood respectively to those cases wherein the Scripture doth not clearly passe the Verdict in which the authority of the Church is the best rule we can then have as towards practice But this in his Opinion doth not absolutely leave us to follow Tradition of the Church in points of Faith unlesse he contradicts himself as you shall see at the end But you are afraid of want of Number to make noise because you say I said you had no other Testimony but Saint Austins I did not say that you had none but his absolutely but you had none but his that I could see of those you produced Neither him indeed if you please to tell us what you see Therefore we shall look over your reinforcing his and the main testimony for your cause in my answer whereunto I see yet no place for amendments or abatement I said if you consider the whole tenâ—â—r of the chapter you may be inclined to think that it came from him in some heat of dispute and methinks I may think so still Your men are wont to answer evidences of the Fathers which are against them when they please that such passages came from them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and surely we may have that liberty when there is such occasion given for us to interpret them as here if we consider how he was displeased with himself for a former respect to that Epistle and also if we take notice of his short returns of discourse in this Epistle and also if we mark his check and correcting and taking up himself towards the end of the chapter with an absit Sed absit ut ego Evangelio non credam And if this answer doth not weigh with you then I gave you another that this might be spoken of himself not in sensu composito as then but in sensu diviso as in order to that time when he was a Manichee himself To which purpose I told you it was familiar to him and other writers of that part of the world to expresse a tense more then past by the imperfect and the sense is that when he was a Manichee he would not have believed the Gospel but that the authority of the Church had moved him to it One place of this usage I found to be in a chapter you quoted in his De Predestinatione Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 1. s 14. Qui igitur opus est ut eorum ferutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haresis â—riretur non habuerunt necessitatem in hâc difficili ad solvendum quastione versari quod procul dubio facerem si respondere talibus cogerentur where you have the Imperfect Tense for the Tense more past facerent for fecissent and so the other So in his first Book of Retract cap. 51. Profecto non dixissem si jam â—uns essem literis Sucris ita eruditus ut recolerem where you have essem for fuissem and so the other And also by the way let me observe somewhat from those two places towards the main question besides the use of them in the way of Criticisme For by the former you have the reason why the Tradition of the Church in Doctrines received will not make an end of our differences since the questions were not then started and also by the second you may observe that we cannot swallow all that was said by Saint Austin without chewing since he sayes himself that had he been so well instructed he would not have said this and that And indeed his books of Retractations are books against you and do conclude wholly that we are not to take whatsoever the Fathers wrote to be as true as Gospel Yea some such books of Retractations all of them might have made as some think Origen did although they are perished as to us But the answers which I gave you to that passage of Saint Austin will not content you Therefore you endevour to shew at large that they will not serve You say unlesse he will stand to that ground he must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary What ground do you mean VVhat that he was moved by the Churches Infallible Authority as you would conclude at every turn No supposing him not to speak in aestu Sermonis yet what he said against his Adversary was reasonable without urging the Infallible authority For the consent of the Church might be considered by him as a condition towards the reception of any doctrine and yet not to be that which he built his Faith upon as upon an Infallible ground You may know the Causa sine qua non is not a cause although such a thing be not without it yet is not this the cause thereof And therefore make what you can of the place it will not afford you a firm foundation if his authority could do it You say that this is his first argument to shew that his Adversary by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle could prove nothing against those who as yet have not believed the Gospel So you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then Because the Adversary can prove nothing by Scripture to those that deny it therefore Saint Austin must infer that the authority of the Church is infallible and he must believe the Gospel upon no other ground VVhat consequence is this as if because Saint Austins adversary cared not for the judgement of the Church therefore we must be guilty of that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath so much wronged the Church as nothing more This
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
the not being a rule upon this account the traditions and the testimonies of the Fathers cannot be a rule because they have been abused Thirdly We do not intend the use of the judgement of discretion to rest in that upon an interpretation nor do we oppose it to the authoritie of the Church but we say this must be satisfied in Articles and matters of Faith notwithstanding the decisions of the Church by consonance thereof to Scripture otherwise it cannot give the assent of Divine Faith Every one must be perswaded in his own mind although he doth not make his own sense This private judgement should neither be blind nor heady it respects authoritie but joyneth only with appearance of the Word of God That which you say to the seventh answer was examined before That which you say to the eighth answer will not serve to save you from differing from your self which indeed if it were in way of retractation would not be reprehensible as Saint Austin speaks in the Preface of his Retractations Neque enim nisi imprudens c. for neither will any but an unwise man reprehend me because I reprehend my errours But if you have a mind to see the difference betwixt you and you you may thus Before you said that the ground of believing is the authoritie of the Church since you have said in your second paper that it is the authoritie of God revealing If there be no difference why do you not keep your terms as a Disputant should do But you say your reply is exceeding easie the ground of our faith is God revealing and God revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word So you Now then if you make the authoritie of God revealing to be the ground and cause of faith then it is not the authoritie of the Church because although God doth reveal by his Church yet is not the authoritie of the Church the ground of faith but Gods authoritie for the Church is but as a Messenger or Ambassadour which we do not believe for himself but for his Letters of Credence from his Master and so is it the authoritie of Gods revealing which is the ground of faith And this is made out by that you say to compound your variance You say the ground of our faith is God revealing and Gods revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word then the authoritie is his whereby we believe and not the authoritie of the Church which is but Miniâ—terial And by your own argument are you undone for if the Church be the ground of faith and not the Scripture because by the Church we believe such and such books to be Canonical as you have said before and also here below in this Reply to my eight Answer then also the Authoritie of the Church is not the ground of faith because we must first believe Gods authoritie revealing it to his Church before we believe the Church But also to take notice of that Argument of yours here it is false For we must first believe the authoritie of Scripture before we can believe any authoritie of the Church For the Church as such hath all from Scripture as I have shewed And therefore by your own argument are you undone again for if that be the ground of faith which is first then the Scripture not the Church and therefore the Church may be disputed not the Scripture which we do understand by way of Intelligence through a supernatural light and cannot demonstrate as we may the Church by principles of Scripture Again you seem to differ from your self because now you hold that the Church is the ground of our faith in all particulars causally because by it we believe the Scripture but before the faith of a Catholick which you mean generally must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it so your first paper in terminis terminantibus But now when we believe the Scripture by the Church we may believe that which is plain in it by it self because it saith it not because the Church saith it Do not you now somewhat yield not to me but to truth Truth will be too hard for any one that hath not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost and yet also will it be too hard for him though he denies it Consider then what you have said and what you think and judge how the Masters of your Church will answer it at Gods Tribunal for that everlasting cheating of simple souls with the mysterie of implicite faith And that also which you so much repeat that we must receive Canonical books by the Infallible authoritie of the Church is not yet grown beyond the height of a postulate It hath been often denied you upon necessitie and it did not obtain it seems universally in the practice of the Church or else some of your Apocriphal books were not accounted Canonical for Cyrill of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechese where he speaks in part of the Scriptures he accounts not in the number the Maccabees you spoke of nor some others Yea for the reception of books Canonical Saint Jerome gives another reason of embracing but four Gospels in his Preface upon the Comment upon Saint Matthew not because the Church owned no more as you would have Saint Austin to be understood but he doth prove that there are but four by compare of that of Ezekiel with that of the Apocalypse about the foure beasts which doe represent as he interprets their meaning the four Evangelists You go on and say God revealing is alwayes the formall Object of faith Before every thing was to be believed as proposed by the Church because she proposeth it so that the formal Object of things to be believed was as proposed by the Church under that consideration But sometimes God revealeth his mind by Scripture sometimes by the Church as he did two thousand years and more before the Scriptures were written So you Well then now he reveales himself by Scripture contradistinctly to the Church as well as by the Church contradistinctly to Scripture which you put in one behalf of your unwritten word So then we may believe him immediately by Scripture but whether we can believe him immediately by tradition without Scripture wants conviction Neither doe you exhibit a reason of this Opinion by that which follows that for two thousand years and upwards before the Scriptures were written he revealed himself by the Church This as before is not enough to sustain traditional Doctrine because the Scripture in the substance of it was before it was written but you cannot evince that the word not written is as certain to us as the word before it was written was unto them And the Reason may be taken from
Gods wise Dispensations to his Church then when there was no Word written he would provide that that whereby the Church should be ruled should be extraordinarily conveyed and preserved but now when there is a Word written which is a most sufficient ground of Faith as you confesse there is no such cause of any word beside it If the Scripture be a Rule of faith as you do liberally grant then this is now a rule not onely inclusively but exclusively for otherwise it is not as large as that which is to be ruled and then they will not agree in the nature of Relatives and so it will not be a Rule of faith and manners For indeed the propertie of a Rule doth not only exclude lesse but also more It speaks against adding to it as a Rule of faith and manners necessarie in themselves as well as against the negative of not ordering them by it But then again your former reasoning is inconcludent because God revealed himself to his Church severally before he revealed himself by his Church And therefore this was not the way universally holding namely by the Church even before the Scripture was written And therefore much lesse doth it now bind when the Word of God is written Shew the like inspirations to the Church as the Prophets had by some infallible way and then we shall say that thus saith the Lord absolutely undisputedly without possibilitie of contradiction by the mouth of the Church in whatsoever it pleaseth to assert for the truth of God to be believed equally to Scripture and then a Council is to be believed without Scripture as the Nicene you mean was not believed or to be believed without for it did determine by it and by that Text I named I and my Father are one which Saint Athanasius doth apply to that question foure times in that Epistle you named And if you can prove that Saint Peters successours as you imagine had that transient gift of immediate Revelation as Saint Peter had then ye might say Peter spake by the mouth of Leo as infallibly as God spake by his Then the Arrians had as good a plea for their opinion as Athanasius had for they urged the Council of Ariminum and more Councils as Athanasius mentions in the same Epistle if what is said by the Church must be true then Athanasius must have changed his Opinion Or if you will have alwayes the Pope to be put into the authoritie of the Church for an infallible definition binding the consciences of all Christians to believe it as Gospel then must we believe that what he defines is Infallibly true What because he cannot erre No more then those fourtie Popes which Bellarmin speaks of in his fourth Book De Rom. Pontif. from the 8. chapter to the 15. who have been as he said accused of errour and some whereof none can say that all the distinctions and provisions which have been devised for this purpose can possibly justifie Pope Zephyrine a Montanist then he erred if not a Montanist then Tertullian is not to be believed Liberius as before an Arrian so Athanasius so Jerome so Damasus of him and Damasus could not erre as you hold yet an Arrian is surely in errour is he not Honorius was erroneous too and he spoken of in a former paper he a Monothelite as Melchior Canus saith some Catholicks hold and he proves it by Synods the sixth the seventh the eighth and he proves it by Epistles of Popes if all there be deceived how shall we believe authoritie of man As for Gregory the Third Bellarmin in the 12. chapter of that book doth openly say Vel certe Pontificem ex ignorantia lapsum esse quod posse Pontificibus accidere non negamus So he Then do you reconcile errour by ignorance with Infallibility How is he like to be Infallible in all his definitions when he was ignorant in the Gospel and therefore gave a Dispensation to a man to take another wife if the former had a disease that made her not able for the conjugal debt And Alphonsus de Castro in his 1. book 4. chapter hath this passage Omnis enim Homo errare potest in fide etiam si Papa sit Nam de Liberio à Papa constat fuisse Arrianum Et Anasterium Papam fuvisse Nestorianis qui Historias legerit non dubitat and a little after Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent qui fit ut sacras Literas interpretari possent And how then shall we by your Head of the Church or any other severally or together know the undoubted sense of Scripture infallibly But many necessary places of Scripture do not as you imagin need a Judge or not infallible All things also necessary to be believed are set down in Scripture and the contrary you have not shewed and therefore is there no need of an infallible Judge for the former or tradition for the latter as I have shewed Neverthelesse you proceed thus The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her authoritie to be our ordinary cause of Faith So you Answer As you suppose much for your advantage without colour of reason so you confound much without distinction First the term Revelation hath two respects one to the Agent and so it refers to the act and manner thereof another to the matter of that which is revealed that is the object The Revelation of God taking it passively for the object the matter which is revealed comes to us by the Church because the Word written ordinarily comes to us by the Church But taking Revelation of God actively with respect to the manner to bear your sense that God doth reveal himself infallibly by the Church either in the case of Canonical books or of doubts about the sense of Scripture so it doth not come by the Church and therefore is it not the ordinary cause of Faith which must rely upon infallible veritie as Aquinas speaks in his first part first question eight answer and therefore as before doth rely upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets which wrote the Canonical books and not then upon the Church who was bound to receive these Books and to communicate them So that the Church is concluded to be as an instrument only or a motive of this faith an instrument by its office and a motive by its authority And as for declaring undoubtedly the sense of Scripture So is there not any necessity of a Judge infallible which you would have the Church to be Secondly you suppose that which is not to be supposed that by my words since in those cases the revelation of God comes to us by the Church I must grant her authority to be the ordinary cause of faith and you say also that by my words in this place I must grant so Surely you here do commit
Crimen falsi for I do not see upon the place any half Syllables out of which you may draw any such interpretative Confession I have often upon your occasion said the contrary that the authority of the Church cannot be the cause of faith And therefore whether you have any faith of the Articles of Religion or of Scripture in all your Church is more easie to be found then said And assuredly though we talk of faith in the world the greatest part of it is but opinion which takes religion upon the credit of man and not of Scripture And as for us we have also the authority of the Church Catholick to move our judgement and Scripture to settle our faith And we are more related to the foure General Councils in consanguinitie of Doctrine as he said then your Church now And now at the end of all you doe fairly rebate the edge of your censure of my Expression namely Excesse of Faith But you say my distinction doth no way salve the improprietie of my Speech For there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects But granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that sense it is not truely said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing that which God hath said So then by my Distinctions which is your School of Fides Subjectiva fides Objectiva fides Qua fides Quae there may be an Excesse of Faith in the Object if we beleive more then God hath said supposing we can believe what God hath not said although there be not an excess of faith in the Subject for we cannot have too much faith in that which is to be believed But the quarrel against the speech was not becacause it was not proper enough and congruous in this Discourse but because of the Application of it to you as it now appears and therefore here would you vindicate the Church in this upon the same ground of infallibilitie and therefore for your Faith in whatsoever you believe you have this Warrant Thus saith the Lord. But since this infallibilitie of yours you cannot have without begging of the question even to the last nor shall have it surely by begging you are yet to finde out some Expedience of Means or Arguments how to preserve your selves from that just charge of Excesse of Faith and the chief of that kind is that you speak of your infallibilitie for which you have not Thus saith the Lord. How then do you prove it by Tradition And how do you prove Tradition by the infallibility of the Church Therefore go not to Faith about by a circumference If you have a desire to rest your judgement and your soul in certain infallibilitie by your own word then center in Scripture from which all Lines of Truth are drawn and dismisse Tradition as your men state it for which this infallibilitie was devised and yet cannot be maintained for it cannot maintain it self You close with a passage of Saint Austin If so the words you intend it to set out your Charity to the Church of Christ not to perswade my Faith in its infallibilitie I may love the Church without infallibility because though I doe not love Errour yet must I love the Church when it is in Errour And this gives you occasion to think well of this respective and full answer to your last Paper Excuse me that it was so long ere it came and yet not much above the space of yours and also so long now it is come Onely let me leave you with a Father or two in whose company you are delighted Tertullian in his Prescript cap. 8. We have no need of Curiositie after Christ nor further Inquisition after the Gospell When we believe we desire to believe nothing beyond For this we first believe that there is not any thing beyond which we ought to believe Again against Hermog cap. 22. I adore the plenitude of Scripture And a little after Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina If it be not written let him fear that woe appointed for those who adde or take away And Saint Austin in his 2. book De Doc. Christiana cap. 9. In iis enim quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt Amongst those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture are found all those things which contain Faith and Manners of Living to wit Hope and Charitie For the excellent modification of Scripture in the 6. chapter Magnifice igitur salubriter Sp. Sanctus ita Scripturas Sanitas modificavit ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur And the same in the 7. chapter for the second Degree or step to Wisedome He saith Deinde opus est mitescere Pietate neque Contradicere Divinae Scripturae sive intellectae si aliqua vitia nostra percutit sive non intellectae quasi nos melius sapere meliusque percipere possimus sed cogitare potius credere id esse melius verius quod ibi scriptum est etiamsi lateat quam id quod nos per nos met-ipsos sapere possumus And again Saint Austin contra Literas Petit. Lib. 3. cap. 6. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit Si Angelus de Coelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis Anathema sit Consider what is said and the Lord give you understanding in all things To the Reader How in these times in which there be so many Religions the true Religion may certainly be found out 1. A Satisfactory Answer to this Title will alone put an end to the endless controversies of these dayes This made me think my labour well bestowed in treating this point somewhat largely And because that Treatise hath received a very large answer the examining of this answer will make the Truth yet more apparent That this may be done more clearly I will briefly tell you the Order I intend to observe in the examination of the said answer And because this answer directly followeth the same Order which I observed in treating the question prefixed in my Title Therefore when I have shewed you the Order of that Treatise you will clearly see that I shall most orderly answer the Reply against it 2. That Treatise had a short Preface to tell the intent of it My first Chapter must then be the Examination of what is said against this Preface Again that Treatise did shew five things First it did shew the necessity of a Judge to whom all are bound to submit Secondly That Scripture alone did not suffice to decide all necessary Controversies without a living Judge to
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
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
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
which by the Trent Councel was Christened Authentique before it was born You make that to be the Scripture by which you must decide Controversies then you decide Controversies by Scripture And hath that no faults in it Is it every word Infallibly done If Infallibly done at first why did Clement the eighth vary from Sixtus quintus and why doth Isidor Clarius vary from him in thousands of places And do you any where find in Scripture that this Interpretation is made Canonical And are there none that find great fault with this Latin one If you will look into your Bellarmine in his third Book De verbo Dei 10. Chapter you may finde the contrary and although it goes under the account of an antient Edition and Hieronis yet in the Chapter before you may see he findes adversary objections and you may find by his confession that all is not his VVhat need then Sixtus Quintus have made it up And is not your Rhemish Testament very faultie Will you undertake to make it all good against Fulk And if you say that you may be certain of your Latin by the Church which you will prove to be infallible until you do prove it you doe again commit the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This should have been made irrefragably sure at first by Achillean invincible arguments and then we should have fallen down before you But again you tell us you will do it and presently fly at us for our Opinion Is there not one of yours who is prettily in his Opposition against Bishop Andrewes about the Popes temporal power compared to the pulex Qui cessim fugit fugit recessìm Et subsultibus hinc hinc citatis Vibrat cruscula And is there no more do so In some lines following of your Treatise we have nothing but petitions or repetitions and we answer no more till you prove more then this no man ever erred by following Scripture sincerely which you grant to be the infallible Word of God If they erred they erred from Scripture not by it But fools may be made wise by Scripture and wise men may erre by your Church until you make it infallible Nullibi pronior fidei lapsus quam ubi rei falsae gravis autor extitit as he said If they may teach that which is false wise men may also be deceived if they be not infallible they may teach that which is false But in the eighth line of the ninth page you oppose to me Saint Austins authoritie and of all the greatest Doctors which ever the Church had that they professed themselves unable to understand the Scriptures and that after many years study and how then c. We easily answer Saint Austin doth not say that the Scripture is absolutely and universally in all places so difficult that we may not get out from thence that which will direct us to Heaven for then he should contradict himself Doth he not say in his 4 th chapter of the 2. Book Dê Doct. Christ That there are some things indeed difficult but the obscurity is profitable to tame our pride by labour and to bring back our understanding from loathing cui facile investigata plerumque vilescum as he saith And fully again in in his 10 th Tome De verbis Apostoli Serm. the 13 th Verbi Dei altitudo c. The sublimitie of the Word of God doth exercise our study doth not deny to be understood If all were shut up there would be nothing whereby that which is obscure would be revealed Again if all were covered there would not be from whence the soul should receive nourishment and might have strength to knock at that which is shut Therefore your fallacie is à dicto secundum quid if from hence you would conclude all to be difficult yea so you would contradict Saint Peter who saith of Saint Pauls Epistles that somethings of them are hard to be understood not all Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam as the Rule is Yea you would contradict your self who say more then once that those things which are plain in Scripture you believe by the authority of Scripture But if from the asserting of some things difficult you would onely conclude that this cannot be the judge in Controversies as you seem to intend in your conclusion we say plainly this difficulty in some things of Scripture doth not inferre the necessity of an infallible Judge on earth your premisses do not conclude this and we allow unto you the use of Judges on earth although they be not infallible As Judges in civil Causes may and do sometimes erre yet is there use of them so also is there of Ecclesiastical Judges though not incapable of errour and again there is no peril of damnation on either side soberly held in points of Question and therefore the Scripture yet may be the way so direct that fools cannot erre in matters of necessary faith and practice And fourthly a General Council is the highest you can goe in humane Authoritie and yet this doth not binde unto Faith because it is not free from errour To which purpose believe Saint Austin if you will stand to his judgement in his third book against Maximinus Bish of the Arrians the fourteenth chapter Sed nunc nac ego Nicenum c. But now neither ought I produce the Nicene Council nor you that of Ariminum as boasting thereof neither am I held under the authority of this nor you of the other Let matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason be debated by Authorities of Scriptures not proper witnesses to any but common to both So he Where you see he prefers the authorities of Scripture before Councils which are proved not infallible even here because one was for the Arrians Here is Council against Council as there hath been Pope against Pope In this case what will you do which must you submit to Is one infallible contrary to another infallible If you must submit to both you submit to errour if to one why not to the other if that be infallible And this also will include uncertainty of all humane definitions about the Canon of Scripture which hath been spoken to before We come now to your second Reason in your eighth Number That you say comes into this Enthymene Many Controversies there are and may be yet very many more most neerly concerning the necessary means to salvation which can never be ended and undoubtedly decided by judgement and sentence of the Scriptures therefore the Scripture is not the Judge We answer to the Antecedent in those termes I deny it in both the branches if you mean by those things nearly concerning the necessary means to salvation such things as are indeed necessary to salvation otherwise you go upon a false supposition that there is a necessitie of a Judge on earth undoubtedly to decide that which is not necessarie Therefore chuse you which you will hold to if you mean those
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
whereas there is but one sense of Scripture principally intended which is expressed sometimes properly sometimes improperly As for the mystical Divinity you know it is not argumentative but where it is declared in Scripture And as for the setting out of things Spiritual in way of Translation from things Temporal you may consider it is necessary if you will believe your Angelical Doctor because since our Knowledge comes here by sense we cannot for this state understand them but by compare to things of sense so that there must upon this account be Metaphors and what are Allegories but Metaphors continued And as for the Tropological sense which respects institution of life that is not difficultly found in more clear precepts Again if by impropriety of speech we should conclude an absolute need of an Infallible Judge then how should we Infallibly be guided by the opinion of the Fathers since so many of them especially Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen who were of the antientest of them are so full of this obscurity And as for your Objection that both Precepts and Councils are delivered in the Mood Imperative you cannot reasonably conceive that we should be so ignorant and credulous as to think that we should swallow down without chewing this your supposition that there are Counsells of Perfection above things of Command for when we have done all we must say that we are unprofitable Servants we have done what we ought to do St. Luke the 17. and 10. Unprofitable not onely to God as your men distinguish but also unprofitable to our selves because we have done but our duty if we did as much as we could which none does and yet if we did as much as we could we should not do so much as we should since the Commands of God are given to us according to the tenour of our ability in Adam which we lost by our own fault Our obedience therefore by it selfe cannot be profitable Another default you will finde or make in Scripture that it doth no where set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals But do you think in earnest that this is a cogent argument for your cause The Scripture doth not set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals therefore it is not to be the Judge of Controversies To your Antecedent we say that the Scripture doth give us every particular point which is necessary to be believed although it doth not give out the Number thereof formall and material how many and which they are Secondly It doth not onely afford that which is simply necessary but doth furnish us with many other particulars so that it is an abundant directory for our use And therefore is there no defect of Wisdome in this Law-maker when he gives us such a Law that Infallibly contains all necessaries and more and when those necessaries are not onely plainly delivered but also what is not plainly delivered is thereby signified not to be necessary Thirdly Again we admit humane dijudications of doubts emergent in some points and they have their use with us without Infallibility Fourthly Either the Scripture yet notwithstanding this is it whereby we must be determined in points of Religion or else the Church but the Church by the same argument is not the Judge because it doth not define whatsoever may be necessary to be held by a full Catholique in your sense Whether the Pope hath Temporal power or not is not this necessary to be determined if it be determined how came your Heart to deny it then whether he hath power Temporal directly as the Canonists or indirectly as others is this determined then how came Bellarmin to go against his Conscience on one side or other for he varied herein as your Widdrington speaks of him And Widdrington he is another against his power in his Apology for the right and Soveraignty of temporal Princes And why is not the question decided whether the Pope be Superiour to a Council in things Ecclesiasticall which the Sorbonists deny Are not there high points which are of weight to move an Infallible Conclusion Not to speak of Gods predetermination or whether the Virgin Mary was Conceived without Original sin How is then the Church the Infallible Judge of Controversies If you say that the Church determines as much as is necessary well then and so hath the Scripture which you acknowledge is Infallible but are not the former points necessary what can you instance in which is more necessary and not determined in Scripture If our Salvation as you hold be in jeopardy for not submitting to the Infallible Judge what can be of more concernment then to know Infallibly who he is and what power he hath which yet your prudent Religion will never make a determination of After this you taxe our Doctrine to be contrary to Scripture and first in the matter of Extream Unction by Saint James We say if you say right that it is clear against us by Scripture then the Scripture hath decided this question then the Scripture can judge and end Controversies And yet at the beginning hereof you speak very warily and discreetly it seems If by this term you would have us believe that it is not evidently declared against us in Scripture then we need say no more as to this case If it be manifest by Scripture against us and you mean your word seems as Aristotle and others use it in way of Elegance or of course then it doth not abate the tenure of the affirmative and then what need we any other Judge so are you held by this Dilemma Secondly That command of Saint James imports no Sacrament as you would have it but doth relate to the gift of Healing in those times Another example of our difference from Scripture you presse the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be in our sense We answer first You say the words of Institution are clear in this Sacrament in which any wise Man would speak clearly and yet afterwards you say this Controversie the Scripture doth not decide How far are these from a contradiction if clear then either is decided or needs none but it is for your turn that it should be clear and not decided clear against us not decided for you VVell here again you incur the former inconvenience which I will let passe Secondly The words indeed are clear for the nature of a Sacrament which under a visible signe represents a spiritual thing and so therefore for the condition of a Sacrament any wise man could not speak more conveniently then in a figurative sense because it is symbolical to the Sacrament For if the real presence as you mean be corporal then is the property of the Sacrament destroyed because the signe is turned into that which is signified And you are in more capacity to yeild a figurative sense here because elsewhere you do object too much of it and here too little Indeed if Scripture had no other handling but yours it would after it more need an Infallible
need then of an infallible Judge since in points of question simple errour is not damnative and where indeed shall we have an infallible Judge if there be fallibility in any particular If the Spirit of God speaks in the Church by infallible assistance cannot the Spirit of God infallibly determine all points or if it assists infallibly only to material Articles which are necessary then do you give us a list of your Fundamentals And also for Fundamentals we need not such a Judge having them with sufficient plainnesse in Scripture which is Infallible Upon the whole matter then there is a possibility of their erring without Infallibility and of our erring without damnation So that your first error is an Infallibility of a Judge the second the necessity of such a Judge and a third is this that no Church can prudently be held to be the Catholick Church but the Roman But ought we not to disturb your delight you take in holding a Religion prudently prudently as if we were to choose a Religion by interesse which prudence doth rather direct to not by sapience of the highest speculative principles which direct the understanding but to let that passe We onely note hereby your pronouncing this main Text for the Authority of the Church that what Authority it hath must be resolved into Scripture then is that the first and highest principle That the center of Truth wherein we must rest and the further we go from that the further from Truth And the greater circumference we draw the lines are the remoter from that wherein we must acquiesce as being the Word of God Yet you say here we see the Judge which Christ hath warranted from bringing in any damnable error therefore may we securely obey So you But where is your connexion in this argumentation Either you distinguish damnative error against that which is not damnative or not If not then in your opinion all error is damnative then take you heed of this for this is one Or if you do distinguish it against error damnative yet may we not securely obey this Judge because then we may be bound to obey him in an 〈◊〉 and so should the understanding be obliged to assent to error which is impossible and he must act against his Conscience even in his assent which is a contradiction And that none may disobey this judge securely the Text you bring Matth. 18.17 will not evince to your pâ—â—pose For first it concerns matters of Trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother not matters of Faith and thus it is Eccentrical to your â—esigne Secondly It concerns refractorinesse of the person not unbelief of the Understanding and so the Authority of the Church may binde against the former though not against the latter Thirdly It respects Excommunication by censure not determination of a point by Infallibility and so also is not proper to your cause And fourthly It may erre in the Censure and therefore Excommunication eo ipso doth not damne as Unbelief may Neither am I bound to believe the Censure is just unlesse it appears to be so Fifthly This power belongs to every particular Church and to the several Prelates thereof as you speak also in the number of multitude and therefore is not appropriated to your Church Sixthly It doth not follow a fortieri as you would have it nor yet at all that because the Church is to judge of private complaints therefore it can judge infallibly in causes of greater importance by its authority it doth the former without Infallibility it does not the latter The former of them doth not conclude against me and the latter cannot be from hence collected As for that which followes Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven as far as it regards Excommunication must be also taken specificatively clave non errante as they speak And this toucheth the person unto the submission not the Conscience as to renounce that which it apprehendeth as true for then should Athanasius have been bound in Conscience by the Censure of the Church to have been an Arrian Then from the peril of disobedience to this judge you gather that this must supposse the judge not to be fallâ—ble in such prime causes as must concern the Church and all such causes are those which may bring 〈◊〉 damnable errors So you in the â—nd of that Number But your premises being destroyed your Conclusion is ruinous and yet also you do not conclude punctually according to an Eleâ—ch for you conclude it not fallible in prime causes of main importance but you should in your proof conclude it not fallible in any thing for if it be fallible in any thing wherein the error is not damnative then you doe not conclude it infallible Yea though it should not erre actually in any decision yee followeth not from hence that it is infallible For Infallibility excludes all error in whatsoever iâ— doth propose or decree and also the possibility of error Therefore prove it thus and then an infallibility of our knowledge of it and infallibly what is the subject of this Infallibility and then I shall stand up to your Creed And if you would go the right way in this dispute you should use another method for whereas you would argue the Church to be the judge which we cannot safely disobey if you could make this sure which yet is not done yet you should rather goe this way synthetically the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define therefore it is the Judge which we ought to obey in all things whatsoever it 〈◊〉 out but your discourse from uncertain decisions and inconveniences doth not bespeak any credence of your infallibility much lesse of our knowledge thereof Now we follow you into your eighteenth paragraph And here we meet with St Austins suffrage in his 20. de â—in cap. 9. where he comments upon these words of Rev. â—â— 4 I fanâ— throâ—â— and they sate upon them and judgment was given them So the testimony And what from hence Because the Praeposits judge on earth therefore infallibly then every Church which hath Praeposits should be Infallible Doth this follow we deny not their Iudicature but their Infallibility Conclude thus or you agree with us Then you â—â—y to the Old Testament Mal. 2.7 For the Priests lips shall keep knowledge and they shall require the law from his mouth So you And you note besides a great corruption in our English which rendreth the words the Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law We need not answer that this Text hath nothing for you Is it meant of the Priests at Rome If not how belongeth it to you but to the Priests of the Church â— what an general what then do you get by this Secondly They keep Knowledge sufficiently for the people Do they keep it Infallibly If not we are agreed If infallibly how are the Priests taxed in the following words for not doing so And if the
Ut sic quatenus errer it is false All simple errour is not damnative to the person And therefore Christ may be with some who live in some errour indeed otherwise with whom is he For who is there that lives not in some errour though he knows it not If you mean then damnable errour distinctively I grant you all and yet you have nothing thereby for your cause For this doth not prove infallibility to your Church Security from damnable errour distinctively taken doth not infer absolute infallibility The former is promised as also in that of Saint John 14.16 which you would reinforce here but absolute infallibility is not intended And this you must have or else you are utterly lost For if the Church be not infallible in all that is proposed by it how shall I be assured of any particular thing which it proposeth If I be not assured of this particular how am I bound to believe it If I be not bound to beleeve it upon its proposal how is it the ground of Faith Divine If it be not the ground of Faith Divine then you are gone And besides those promises in Saint Matthew and Saint John you may know were made as to the Apostles equally and therefore to their successours equally and to the Church universal equally by consequent and therefore cannot you appropriate it to your Bishop and to your Church Saint Austins authority in a passage of his wherein you say he speaks admirably in this De utilitate credendi cap 6. you had better have omitted It strengthens your cause nothing if you quote it as you should First it is misquoted for the chapter for it is not in the 6. chapter but in the 16. Secondly you may see in the beginning of the chapter that the scope of it is to shew how authority may first move to Faith And Thirdly this scope may discover your corrupting of his Text for it is not as you give it a certain step but contrary an uncertain step velut gradu incerto innitentes as in the Froben Edition â—N M. D. lxix Whereby you may perceive how little reason we have to credit your infallibility And then Fourthly part of his authority in that chapter is by miracles of Christ which he did himself on earth The summe of your fourth Number is this to perswade not onely that the Churches authority is infallible if it judge conformably to Scripture for so even the Devil himself is infallible so long as he teacheth conformably to Scriptures but that the Church shall at no time teach any thing that in any damnable errour shall be against Scripture So that when we know this is her Doctrine we are sure that this is conformable to the Scriptures rightly understood And this you would prove by two Testimonies of Scripture We answer distinctly and First to that you say about the Devil First we are not commanded but forbidden to consult with the Devil but we are injoyned to consult with the Church of God Secondly we have cause alwayes to suspect the Devil because either he doth not give us all the Scripture unto a particular or doth pervert it or doth speak the truth with an intention of deceiving the more but we have more charity towards the Church we have none towards the Devill Thirdly Yet though we do not believe the Devil in point of truth upon his authority neverthelesse can we not believe the Church in whatsoever it sayes to be true upon its authority neither doth it follow that the Devil should hereupon be the pillar and ground of Truth when he said that which is conformable to Scripture as well as the Church because the Church doth hold and uphold Truth so doth not the Devil but when he useth it he doth it to destroy it and again we are moved to think that which is proposed by the Church to be true so are we not moved by the Devil to conceive it to be true upon his saying so And therefore if I do believe that which the Devil saith conformable to Scripture to be true and do not beleeve that every thing which is said by the Church to be conformable to Scripture I do not make the same account of what is said by one and by the other For that which is true I doe beleeve because it is seâ— though the Devil saith it I do beleeve it in respect to the matter without any respect to the Author and that which is not true according to Scripture I cannot beleeve though the Church saith it yet am I moved by the authority of the Church to consider the point more because it is proposed by them and what is by them proposed according to Scripture I am moved to beleeve of with respect of the Authour of the proposal but cannot be resolved in my Faith of but by the authority of Scripture And therefore I cannot beleeve that whatsoever is said by the Church is agreable to Scripture because the Church faith it for this proposition for ought as yet proved is not agreable to Scripture rightly understood And if you say that your Church must judge the sense let it first judge whether it doth not beg the principle Neither have your Texts alledged any thing for you Not that of Daniel the 2. chapter the 44. verse It respects indeed the Kingdome of Christ in general and therefore is not proper to any Church of his signaâ—ter for any thing can be shewed by the Text. Secondly The Kingdome of Christ principally respects the Church invisible which as such is not our guide Thirdly it may certainly come to its everlasting reign in Heaven notwithstanding some errour on earth by the Church visible Fourthly whereas you say it shall destroy all Idolatrous kingdomes you doe very well add in your Parenthesis Idolatrous Kingdomes to save your selves from suspition But it all Idolatrous Kingdomes then have you reason to make your infallibilitie more strongly infallible otherwise you will be included in this distraction So also that of Esay 59.21 profits you nothing some of the former answers may serve it principally is intended for the Church invisible which by the Church visible may sufficiently be directed through the means of grace to salvation infallibly without infallibility of the Church As the Word of God was certain before it was written and the Church then was by it directed because it was then in substance of it though not written as we have said before but you compell us to repeat so by the Word written infallibly though not infallibly expounded and applied by the Pastours of the Church shall the Church be brought to Life For if every evil action doth not destroy the state of salvation as you will confesse then surely every simple errour cannot because it is not voluntary And this is fully able to answer your Appendix to this Number at the end of your paper Those Testimonies if they be rightly cited yet in those terms affirm no more then
Catholick authority doth commend both which may be done without infallibility For the commendation doth not ingage the judgement in assent necessary but the authority may ingage the mind to have a good opinion thereof and so may move dispositively to Faith Fifthly Perpende it well that it is said by St. Austin that he was moved by the Catholick Church its authority and that the Catholick authority doth commend both not the Roman authority which now is included or to be included And therefore if you could prove that Saint Austin intended as much as you would have and also that his authority were sufficient to carry the cause for the Catholick Church Yet you can have from hence no more then your part comes to of a particular Catholick Church if indeed you were such And therefore have you upon your shoulders such a labour as all discerning Catholicks would detract or retract namely to make good that whatsoever is said of the Catholick Church in the respects of it should be singularly appropriated to the Roman But of this in your 27 number Whereas you seem to vaunt upon your paraphrase could he more clearly say that if once in one single lye he should find the Churches authority to be fallible he should then have left unto him no infallible ground at all upon which he were to beleeve Scripture So you First I deny your consequence this doth not follow from what you have urged that Saint Austin drives this discourse that if he should find them in a lye he could have no infallible ground to beleeve Scripture It follows well that he could not beleeve Scripture by their authority because they had led unto him But though they did not lie to him they might be fallible for they might purpose that which they thought to be true for errour and therefore for their not lying can we not infer their infallibility And for ought I see he doth not here any way give us to understand that he did think they could not lye to him and therefore he could not conceive them upon this impossibility to be infallible As for that which you think an Argument against me that he could not speak any thing in heat or by slip which he so much inculcates This is nothing effectual for how often do we with fervour endevor to maintain that which once hath by incogitance or passion gone from us Yea it may seem more likely because he doth so much inculcate it because we are so eager to cover our imperfections and especially when we are like to make good use of it against an adversary Secondly what doth he inculcate that which you would have But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they say this is under question and therefore his inculcation is nothing to you if he speak it assertively until you fortifie your supposition But one Marginal note of yours more at the sign of the crosse I find and that is this Had he said that he beleeved this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it by which he discovered it to be Canonical then the Manichaeans might as easily have said that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical So you This is no way moving much lesse cogent For first it proceeds from a Negative which in the kind of it unless from Scripture which is the adaequate rule is of no validity Because he did not say so therefore he did not hold so No connexion Secondly by the same reason I may say he did not hold the authority of the Church to be infallible for then he would have told them so plainly he would have made an end of the dispute without any need of using Scripture Thirdly they were not prepared for this Theological Argument because they did not own the Church And now all things being duely considered I think you have no cause to say that I have not sincerely and fully answered what you have had to say for your self out of that supreme Testimonie of Saint Austin And if you compare that chapter with the chapter you mention in the same Number below namely the fifth against the Epistle of the Manichee with the 14. De util Cred. against the Manichees too you will not or cannot heartily dislike my Answers and therefore need I not distinctly to answer this last since here also he doth not compare the authoritie of the Church with the authoritie of the Scripture which is our main question but he compares with the authoritie of those few those turbulent those new men as he speaks who were not like to bring forth any thing which any without doubt might not think not worthy of authoritie the authoritie of the Church as to the beleeving of Christ where also he said that he was moved by the authoritie of the Catholicks Quorum autoritate commotus Christum aliquid utile praecepisse jam credidi Whereby you shall if you will see the reasonablenesse of the former criticism because here he said jam credidi so that it must refer to to him as a Manichee And therefore can you not with Saint Austin beleeve the whole Scripture to be the Word of God from the beginning to the ending as upon infallible authority of the Church because if he did yet cannot you do it which is not to be done and if it be to be done because he did it then it is not to be done because he did it not And I hope those strange stories and those several points which you speak to be in Scripture may be more like to be beleeved upon the authority of the Scripture then upon the authority of the Church since the Church hath no authority but from Scripture not as a Church And therefore if you have no other infallible ground for prayers to Saints and prayer for the dead in your sense and other like points then you have proved he went upon as towards the believing of Scripture you have none Nay you have not so good authority for those and such like points as he had for the belief of the Scripture for besides the difference of the matter he had Catholick authority for his belief though the authority was not Infallible but you have not Catholick authority for your points though fallible But I observe your wisdome You would justifie your points here by Infallibility which you think may be more likely then to justifie your Infallibility by your points of difference Therefore your conditional postulate might have been spared untill the condition be proved If Saint Austin had done so as you suppose then you or your Church would have been more excused from singularity because you had followed him As for you you need not fear singularity You provide against that in your opinion or your Masters for you for you must follow the Church without examination of what they say Their word must be taken but yet your Church may be accused
might gaine more credit to their error by holinesse of life as Socinus and others You come then to refute my arguments First it is so far from being contrary from that text you err not knowing the Scriptures that it is most agreeable to it For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of the Scripture is to permit such and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures as are most fit to erre in the interpretation of them And is this a good refutation And therefore the meaning of our Saviour must be according to your use they erred because they have the knowledge of the Scriptures which they mis-interpreted Shift you how you will you cannot evade was the knowledge of the Scriptures the cause of their error no that is contrary to our Saviour who said you err not knowing the Scriptures was it necessary that those who did know the Scriptures should mis-interpret them no for then that will by a recideration come into the same inconvenience for then the knowledge will be a certain mean at least in a large sense of this mis-interpretation And so it would be our best way to know nothing of Scripture that so we may not err 3. Can we imagine that our Saviour Christ discoursed as you do that because by our fault the Scriptures are an occasion of mis-interpretation therefore the people should not commonly use them is this symbolicall to the sense of our Saviour's words you err not knowing the Scriptures 4. Our Saviour then by you rebukes their mis-interpretation then he would have them know the Scriptures better not have the people deprived of them 5. There is a double knowledge as to this purpose 1. An habituall Knowledge which is chiefly of the Principles in Scripture this they had in their mind Then there is an actuall Knowledge which consists in an application of those Principles to particular Conclusions of belief and practise They were wanting it seems in the later in that they did not so as they should consider that text in Moses which our Saviour makes use of for the Resurrection They might have inferred the Resurrection from that text and so not have erred Therefore had they more need to look over the Scriptures again and consider them better The saying of the Jew is good He that reads a book an hundred times is not like him that readeth it an hundred times and one The oftner we read it especially the Bible the more we see in it But you bring a corroboration of your answer specially being licensed to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority of the Church if they stand in their way Sir this will not do 1. We licence them not to crosse all Antiquity we need not give them such a direction and surely if they should you would have no cause to blame them We have liberty to use that of the Philosopher in his Rhet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you look to that who contradict God and Fathers and Doctors 2. They cannot intend surely the crossing of all Antiquity for certainly they do not know all Antiquity yea if you speak all Antiquity with a full universality there are few of your own learned men that know it And therefore if any of their interpretations doth crosse antiquity it doth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is but by accident And in things necessary they are not so like to do so 3. Who is there of all your men that have proved this proposition that the Consent of the Fathers supposed makes an argument of Divine Faith therefore though we love their company yet we desire to see our way But object to us nothing but that which is proper How shall your men know that what they hold doth not crosse all Antiquity The Authority of the Church gives them neither faith of it nor Knowledge Yea some of yours say omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic You go on And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding the knowledge of the Scripture c. unto secondly Ans You make your self sport with the Ambiguity of the word Knowledge You mean it by way of a Science as Physick we do not say that Trades-men make any knowledge of Divinity so as to give an account of the principles of Divinity in the body of it no but they may have a knowledge of Scripture sufficient for their use although they do not teach others As if there were plain principles of Physick in our language we might make use them for our selves as Tiberius said after thirty years of age he would laugh at those who did need a Physitian you are deceived then or would deceive in the fallacie of consequent though all Science be knowledge all knowledge is not Science for knowledge is more generall and therefore surely of it self doth not inferre the most perfect species You say secondly you in vaine object that of St. Paul that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation c. unto thirdly wherein you allow the truth of the text with your gloss namely not as they are interpreted by every giddy fansie but by Tim. who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of by orall tradition Ans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what will you get by this answer If you understand by orall tradition such doctrines of the Gospell which were first preached afterwards written we grant you the use of such orall traditions but this boots you not for you must have traditions in point of faith besides what is written and such we deny unto you that Timothy had And I prove my deniall by your own words For how could Timothy understand Scripture by what was beside Scripture you speake of his understanding the Scripture by tradition tradition of proper name is that which is beside Scripture in the matter of it and how can he by that which is different in matter understand the Scripture If you mean by orall Traditions some traditive interpretations as learned men call them of the more difficult passages of Scripture this indeed were more reasonable in the hypothesis as to Timothy but this is nothing to us unlesse you can tell us certainly how many and what they are If there were such and lost then your Church is lost 2. Againe we allow no giddy fansie to define the sense of Scripture but in things necessary and plain their own knowledge may be sufficient and their private judgement may be as safely exercised in the sence thereof as in the choice of your Religion But thirdly by your own words I will conclude against you a fortiori for if the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise who was a Teacher much more others since as Mr. Cressy and you afterwards affirm there is more requisite to a Minister to be believed than others If then they be able to make a Minister wise unto salvation then one of the People much more who according
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
blessing may be like to pitch upon that true sense of Scripture which may determine the judgement unto certain assent As by the conflict of hard things sparkes of fire do break out so by the industrious discussion of opinions truth may appear eminently But we cannot conclude the definitions intuitively and ipso facto infallible And why should we be obliged to stand to their declaration of truth as if they did also make it to be truth And why should we stand to their Conclusions when their discourse is fallible unlesse they go by Scripture And if they by Scripture examine opinions why should not we by Scripture examine their definitions as to our selves Which should be last in the determination Council or Scripture when Councils begin by it and determine with it Therefore I do not make them in no sense finall or none That which follows Now surely it is cleare c. unto the end of the number how little strength of reason hath it This in effect was answered immediately before My Adversary does us right in confessing our acknowledgement of the first four Generall Councils And also may we confesse that we think they thought they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define and finally to determine those Controversies but what then 1. What if they thought so We have liberty by our principles to think that inconcludent because we hold them not infallible in their judgement Not because they thought they had such power therefore they had it unlesse we should hold them infallible as we do not Neither is this thought of ours that they might think amiss of such power to be in them any prejudice to our acknowledgement of those first four General Councils because this opinion of theirs is no part of their determinations Secondly we distinguish All plenitude of power is taken either reduplicatively or specificatively for all that power which belongs to the whole Church the former if their opinion of themselves were infallible would serve his turne but we deny that they thought they had all power so and if they did think so we think they did not think right the latter power they might think they had and not think amisse but this serves not the turn for all authority of the Church doth not bind us to receive the definitions thereof so as to sink all examination of the truth thereof by Scripture Have not other courts a plenitude of power to hear and determine causes and yet are sometimes defective in point of law Their fallibility doth not proceed from want of power or authoritie but from want of judgement or will to give a right sentence And yet their censures also proceed And therefore the excommunications which my Adversary objects to me may neither import their faith of their infallibilitie nor yet wrong to all such as should gainsay what they had defined and determined if error and falsitie and contradiction to Scripture could be found in their definitions and determinations for first it is not fallibilitie of sentence that doth the wrong but falsity either by ignorance and so ignorantia in Judice reputatur pro dolo or else by wilfulnesse which formally makes the injurie because intended Secondly the excommunications proceed against the person for an outward act of obstinacie and not for a dissent of judgment for cogitationis poenam in nostro foro nemo luit so then there is no wrong to him that gainsays by excommunication for that simply he might keep his judgment And also thirdly the Judge though he judgeth not well yet may do well if he judgeth with competent knowledge and due integrity and therefore is it no injury if he does his best since God hath not thought fit on the behalfe of publick peace to disannull humane Judicatures for humane infirmities His Answer to my instance of the Bereans who searched the Scripture daily to see whether that which St. Paul said was true my Adversary doth referre to another Chapter We stay his leisure Whereas you adde fourthly Num. 6. that the decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto peace though their judgement cannot claime an undisputed assent yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference you teach by words what the deed of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid To this it is readily answered that Reformers may be glorious as to the generall effect though it 's possible for them to be extravagant in modo Sober businesses may be managed with too much heate Secondly whereas he supposeth that our glorious Reformers did notoriously gainsay the whole Church I deny it and if they did not gainesay the whole Church it doth not come home to his purpose for he is upon the authority of the whole Church They did gainsay the Roman Church but not the whole Church That which St. Jerom said in his Epistle to Evagrius is yet for our use si authoritas queritur orbis major est urbe if authority be lookt after the world is greater than a City which was also spoken in application to Rome And put case there were no sort of Christians that did not professe obedience to the Roman Church when those glorious Reformers did first appeare yet it cannot be rationally said by the Romanist that they did gainsay the whole Church because the Romanist doth take the root of his Church from the primitive times which those Reformers did not gainsay So then as we deny to them that they were all the whole Church when the Reformers did begin so if they had it would be nothing as to the gainsaying of the whole Church because the whole Church in their sence doth include all times and specially the primitive which they did not contradict And surely if the Romanist proves his Church by conformitie to the Primitive otherwise he hath the lesse reason for himself then must he interpretatively grant that there is more authority of the Primitive Church than of that present Roman And so then if the Reformers gainsaid not the primitive they gainsaid not the Catholick in the best part of it for time and that also which the present Roman doth most as they say depend upon Thirdly therefore we do not take our Religion from those Reformers as being worne into their words and therefore we do not impropriate Christianity by any singular persons we might take hints from them to consider those Doctrines which they preached and conferring them with Antiquity and Scripture we believe them to be Apostolicall and so is our Church by Tertullian's rule in his book of Prescriptions ch 32. In eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae those Churches that conspire in the faith are not lesse accounted Apostolical for the consanguinity of Doctrine Fourthly those Reformers even according to my Adversaries Principles did not oppose themselves to the authoritie of the whole Church because according to
reason may this be called the Pontificians use plenty of the Fathers against us therefore he will not answer to my testimonies from them nor to my answers to his testimonies against us Doe any of those Pontificians fully answer my testimonies and doe they sufficiently take off my answers If they doe he should have told me which and where But were I as apt to brag as the Romans are I might not be far from crying victoria that I should stand to answer the Fathers and bring them to stand for us though my Adversary saies I bring them to lesse than nothing and yet he that makes so much of them in shew should detrect this way of plea by them Whereas their small errors used presently to be discovered and cryed down This is not altogether true For how many of their errors continued long yea great errors also as the Millenarie opinion And Infant Communion was not presently decreed neither Therefore yet it remaines to be proved that any of the points of difference betwixt the Papists and us was a standing opinion of the Primitive times which my Adversary would insinuate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it would make a learned man amazed to ask as you do how few of them have touched upon our differences Ans There is no such cause of Amazement Learned men in generall wonder lesse and learned men cannot wonder particularly at this as knowing the reason which was added by me having not occasion by Adversaries and therefore doth my Adversary wisely passe by any mention of the reason as not being pertinent for his use But also was that I said well guarded first how few I did not say none Secondly I said touched namely as to handle and this is necessary to be believed because indeed there were few of them Argumentative then though some of them might put out occasionally some expressions relating to our differences yet is not this to touch argumentatively our differences for aliud agentis parva autoritas as the rule is And then thirdly if many of them at least did not touch so as to handle discursively all our differences there is no cause of admiring my speech for if they had handled some not all how should we have been directed in those which they had not handled Now then let all be considered then upon the whole matter let me say this that if any Pontifician can prove that many of them did handle argumentatively all the points of debate betwixt us then I shall give leave for the amazement of my expression Therefore as to the Authors he produceth of his side who give account of the Fathers in our diffâ—rences as Coccius Gualterus the Author of the Progeny of the Catholicks and Protestants or any other named by any other I say this that he should have told me particulary where each of them doth produce any Father and in what point and also should have shewed in them that many Fathers have all conjunctively spoken of the severall points and also that they have spoken of them directly on purpose where the seat of the matter was and also that no where they contradict what in one place they said or at least did not elsewhere speak doubtingly otherwise he concludes not any thing of weight against me And then secondly I can returne my Adversary number for number and weight for weight of our own who have answered all the testimonies of the Fathers which their learned Champions have produced as Bishop Jewell Dr. Whitaker Dr. Reynolds besides Chamier of France who have refuted the instances of the Fathers Yea the challenge of the first of them was never yet well answered as to the testimony of the Fathers And thirdly either the Fathers cannot be brought in with their suffrages for them or they can if they cannot why doth Campian and others crack and brag of the Fathers and then also my Adversaries Authors are disannulled If they can then either the Fathers speak contradictions since we produce them as well for us and therefore cannot we be ruled by them or else my Adversary needed not to have shifted the answering to them but might have found other passages out of them to have commodiously reconciled the seeming variance Yea then either my Adversary had not such cause to rest infallibity in a Council if all the Fathers of all ages agreed or the consent of the Fathers might be a rule to the Council and then my discourse of the Fathers had good conjunction with the Controversie about Councils As for the Author of the Progeny of Catholicks and Protestants whom he brings in here as handling a part all our main differences and doth in all these points give us the very words of our own chief Doctors clearly acknowledging a great number of holy Fathers directly opposit to us in each one of these points To this I answer that it is possible some of our Church may not meet with right editions of the Fathers might not discerne their true works might mistake the sense and application of some words or not being able dexterously to reconcile their expressions to some other passages of the Fathers and to our opinions might conclude them as opposit If this Argument were good then are they also bound to conclude the Fathers to be on our side because Bellarmin produceth in his Disputations testimonies of the Fathers for us Indeed he endeavours to answer those testimonies but I dare affirme that severall of those testimonies which the Author hath produced from our own side of the Fathers may as well be answered as some of those which Bellarmin answers Thirdly my Adversaries might have known also that there is a book written by none of ours which is a Confutation of Papists by Papists So then if they will set our Divines against us we can set their Divines against them yea also in severall points were the testimonies of the Primitive Church urged against some of their points in the Trent Council by some of their Church Fourthly I have read Breerley through it being commended to me by one who thought I think thereby to convince me in the case and I can give no other account than as Mr. Chillingworth doth that he hath not dealt exactly with the Confessions of those of our Church as in the instance of some passages out of Mr. Hooker as may be seen in Mr. Chillingworth page 62. As also in a passage of Luther as may be seen in Mr. Chilling If the pages 79 and 92 be compared And therefore have we no reason to be concluded against upon his word yea some of the authorities he bringeth do not respect the main points betwixt us and as I remember some authorities are not contradictory to our cause and therefore was I rather confirmed by reading of that book And therefore groundlesse is my Adversaries excuse for not medling with the holy Fathers in this Controversie betwixt us Though they did not professedly discusse and determine our questions and
those who have not Bishops some of them would have them if it were in their power as Bogerman said in the Council of Dort when that Government was commended to him Domine nos non sumus adeo felices And as for those who are ordained without Bishops were this our case we may be as sure they are true Ministers as the Papists can assure themselves that they have true Priests in respect of the uncertainties they are under of the due intention of the Priest in Baptism and of the Bishop in Ordination As to Deacons they might have been left out of the rank with Priests as to true Sacraments for it will not appear that Deacons are appointed jure Divino to assist the Ministers in the Sacraments and if so yet not to be necessary to true Sacraments that they do assist otherwise no true Sacraments What shall this also with the Romans goe into the account of articles of faith And shall this be as necessary to be believed as that Jesus is the Christ Sacraments things so necessary to the salvation of all men This we have spoken to before and it comes in here under a simple diction and not positively as it may be interpteted affirmed or if so necessary be to be taken signanter then is it more easily denied as to all men Our former distinction is yet good necessary by necessity of precept not by necessity of mean Neither is the other Sacrament so necessary as that and yet are they put together upon equall necessity The Sacraments bind us not God to work only by them And also are they administred as duely with us as elswhere Then he brings in a Syllogism against us out of my own words What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary but it is not plainly delivered in Scripture that the Church should be governed by Bishops with such and such authority Thus he would bring in some of those who differ from them and us in this point disputing against Bishops But how would he conclude Therefore not necessary to salvation unlesse he concludes thus it doth not contradict us in our debate And if he does conclude so he concludes beside their intention for they would conclude no more than that they are not necessary to the Government of the Church because it is not held by others that this Government with such and such authoritie is simply necessary to salvation But to the assumption we say dato that the Government of the Church by Bishops with such and such power is not plainly set down in Scripture yet let them shew as much out of Scripture with the practice of the Church for the Bishop of Rome his being universall Bishop as we can shew out of Scripture for Bishops with some authority superior to Presbyters and I shall think better of their cause And therefore let them remember Parvi sunt foris Arma nisi est Consilium domi Let them make sure at home before they combate us with our own contentions For secondly as for such and such authority if he takes it for the Mathematicall point and indivisible degree which the Bishop must have of authority over the rest of the Clergie who is there that so contends it but the Roman Some superiority in the latitude may be able to conserve the form and this is more easily proveable out of Scripture with the practice of the Church But thirdly since he hath brought the Antepiscoparians upon the stage to make sport for them what will the Pontificians say if this argument be in earnest brought against them whatsoever is necessary is plainly set down in Scripture Government by Bishops with such and such authoritie is not plainly set down in Scripture therefore not necessary The major proposition is yet true and good against all his batteries The minor is to have their advice whether they will affirm it or deny it let them speak categorically is it plainly set down or not If it be plainly set down then this instance is against them if it be not plainly set down then they have nothing plainly set down for the Bishop of Rome upon the former rule if there be no Bishop plainly set down then not the Bishop of Rome This he gets by our contentions As for the form of ordaining Priests or Presbyters it is sufficiently set down and we have it practised with us without the Patin and the Chalice and that none but those who are Priests formally or eminently as being more should blesse the bread and consecrate the Sacrament this is clearly enough set down and what kind of bread for the Sacrament as much as is necessary is set down The Pontifician hath no reason if he considers himself to urge all particularities about the Sacraments since he accounts them so necessary would God pinch that which is necessary under so many contingences which he doth not ordinarily provide against Therefore either they are not necessary and then why are they insisted in Or if necessary yet not in all the severall circumstances for then under how many accidentalities should salvation be included He says then he could add many more particulars to the former kind no lesse necessary to be decided If no more necessary it is not like to trouble us Or if necessary they should be decidable by plain Scripture Yes if necessary to salvation And then your Doctors could not jarr about them This I deny and he had better have taken our grant that those of this sort are not plainly set down in Scripture unlesse he had proved it more strongely than by our differences It is possible to differ in plain things but we need not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Mark the 6. 53. And again this is retorted Many things might be named which were in the opinion of some Pontificians no lesse necessary to be decided than the point of originall sin the immaculate conception of the Virgin the point of Residence and of Bishops whether by Divine right and yet are they not determined in the Trent Council no nor those neither positively But it may be they are not necessary for if necessary they should be decidable by plain Decree of Council and then the Doctors could not jarr about them But to give a further check to this unreasonable exacting of such particularities to be plainly decided by Scripture let them consider generally how little was affirmatively defined and clearly in the Council of Trent Yea for further instance are these severals which he hath pointed at more necessary to be decided than the point of Indulgences which was the main point which occasioned the divisions of the Council consequently And yet was not this sufficiently handled yea as the Author of the History says the Protestants complained that the Synod had passed it over without clearing any doubt or deciding any Controversie If they could not or would not how shall we be bound under pain of damnation to take
he makes a calumny because he thinks it as impossible for the Pope to say that vices are vertues as if God the Father should say such a thing was a vertue and Christ should preach such a thing was a vice Ans It would do well as he said to use soft words and hard arguments waving therefore his reflexions we say first the calumnie is not in saying of him what he sayes not but in the mis-interpretation how he speaks it And to this we say it is not necessary to be a calumny for it may be spoken of him as it was spoken by him in way of supposition and may be spoken of him to be spoken by him And therefore if it was no calumny in the Cardinall to say so it may be no calumny in me to say of the Cardinall that he said so They will think a notionall supposition makes no slander whosoever be the subject and whatsoever the predicate and therefore if he thinks that I must speak it of Bellarmin slanderously he must also think that Bellarmin might speak it so too Secondly if it were as impossible to suppose any such thing of the Pope as that God should say such a thing is a virtue and Christ should preach it to be a vice Then why hath the Pope such a Council to assist him It is well put into more hands for fear of a defectibilitie in one And if it be said that this was spoken of the Pope only hypothetically to his saying so as being assisted with a Council it is easily answered that this is not the Jesuits opinion that the Pope is infallible onely with a Council And by the way if a Pope be infallible onely with a Council why did Pope Clement say that a Council was always good but when it medled with the Popes authority Is there any point more considerable than the Popes authority And is he onely infallible in a Council and yet is he afraid that this point should be meddled with in a Council Then he must suspect his own cause in their opinion Well and can God err or can Christ err in precepts and particular judgements as Bellarmin confesseth in the same chap. it is not absurd that the Pope should err And can God or Christ err in commanding any thing unprofitable or under too heavy a punishment It is not absurd to say this of the Pope although it belongs not to subjects to doubt of this but simply to obey as he says in the same chap. Nay if to speak so of the Pope as Bellarmin says in way of supposition were a slander then Bellarmin slanders the Pope also in his second b. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 29. Itaque sicut licet resistere Pontifici c. Therefore as it is lawfull to resist the Pope invading our body so is it lawfull to resist him invading souls and troubling a Commonwealth and much rather Si Ecclesiam destruere niteretur if he should endeavour to destroy the Church Thus he Then he shall defend me therefore may I be clear of slander against Bellarmin or he guilty of slander against the Pope But then thirdly put case I account it no slander against the Pope to affirm a possibility in him to say that vice is virtue The Consequence I hope is good ab esse ad posse he hath done so therefore is it possible To command disobedience to Christ under colour of obedience to him is to say really that vice is virtue and this the Pope hath done in the injunction of his dimi-Communion as before And let them before they presse this slander any further first help Bellarmin to purge the Pope of all those errors in faith and determinations affirmative against Gods precepts negative in point of practice And when they have done this then we shall be afraid to suppose a possibility if we cannot find further instances of fact And therefore they shall not scare us with a charge of calumnie untill they have strongly asserted such an impossibility Indeed impossibilis conditio facit negativam we cannot err in obedience if we cannot err in commanding but that he cannot err in commands is yet sub judice and not himself All Protestants do say as I noted that the Scripture Num. 19. and onely the Scripture is left us by Christ for our Judge to end all Controversies Ans This is no genuine account of our opinion They do not assert the Scripture to be a Judge in formalities They say there is no need of such a Judge as Papists would have since all necessaries unto faith and hope and charity are sufficiently delivered in matter and form without any exigence of such a Judge And in this they agree with all right Catholicks not with Hereticks as he would have it And Hereticks he may know as before have urged the Church for them and St. Austin hath dealt with Hereticks by Scripture and therefore if Hereticks use the Scripture must we not since Hereticks urge the Church by his argument they must not they know the rule Duo cum idem faciunt non est idem It is one thing to use Scripture for the proof of some points and another thing to say Scripture and onely Scripture must be the Judge for all Controversies To what end then is all you say against me as against one misliking the use of Scripture Ans This is all I have from him in account to five or six answers I gave him to the charge against me for using Scripture as Hereticks do Thus easily he puts me off Well to this put-off we say first that this distinction of his imports a confession of his to use Scripture in some points then is not the proposall of the Church necessary to all points and this is some abatement of his former universality Secondly those points he allows the use of Scripture in are necessary as was intimated before since Bellarmin doth own the Scripture for a rule also And if Scripture doth deliver some points necessary quatenus taeles then all necessaries as before neither need these necessaries be many as Mr. Chillingworth hath observed and Tertullian also in effect Certa sunt in paucis The rule of faith used by the Fathers was not numerous in particulars Thirdly we say not that the Scripture is a proper Judge much lesse for all Controversies And therefore if they will stand to what is here said by them and withdraw that which is not duly said of us let them take the Counters and cast up the difference betwixt us They allow the Scripture in some points we allow the Church in some points they allow the Scripture I suppose in some points necessary we allow the Church much in points not necessary If they would extend some points necessary to all points necessary which are not many we not upon condition but freely would give the Church due reverence in points of question and thus there would be soon an end of the Controversies betwixt us and 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
intended by God for we do not say that it is fomally any Judge But we say that the Scripture doth so fully and so plainely set down things necessary so fully and so plainely that there is no necessity of tradition for more matter or of infallible Judge for more clear proposal of things necessary so that this which he saies is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench He saies yet is it not manifest that the Scripture may be a book as perfect as can be for the intent for which God made it This we may take for his proposition Then Bellarmin as before acknowledgeth it to be our rule against the Aanbaptists and therfore it is a perfect rule But elsewhere Bellarmin will have it to be but our commonitory then why doth he dispute it to be a rule against the Aanbaptists Whereas then my adversary would return the disgrace to Scripture upon me he does not or will not understand me for we do not say nor are bound to say that all necessary controversies are plainly decided by Scripture alone and that God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them and therefore we deny his consequences that since when it comes to the trial we are not able to shew any text of Scripture deciding many and most important controversies this in effect were to say God performed very insufficiently what he intended to doe by Scripture first we doe not say that all necessary controversies are plainly decided by Scripture for we say no controversies are necessary in point of necessary faith He puts in necessary controversies for necessary truths we say the Scripture plainly proposeth all necessary truths and he would bring us in saying that the Scripture plainly decides all necessary contoversies and therefore how can he say that we say God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them 2. Therefore we deny those points to be simply necessary to salvation which are not clearly proposed in Scripture 3. Whereas they say that the Scripture doth propose upon Gods intention the Church to be the infallible Judge in matters of faith and yet cannot show any text wherein this is clearly delivered they do dishonor God and Scripture and they dishonor God by accusing of Scripture as Nilus before In this number he holds the conclusion that expressions of Scripture are obscure in way of prophecy or type and that there is no certain mean of direction to the sense and then that therefore there must be an infallible Judge But nothing is answered to my answers about it And did he think that the Iewes did not understand the manner of expressions of the prophets in their own language or that David did not beare the type of Christ How else were they saved in the time before Christ And was the exact sense of every expression or type necessary such exceptions do not weigh And then again if there had been need in the time of the law of an infallible Judge for an infallible Illumination of dark expressions then if so dato non concesso what is this to the necessity of an infallible Judge in the times of the Gospel which is the old Testament revealed N 54. To passe by any slips in the former number by the scribe or otherwise we come to this paragr wherein he is not pleased to say any thing to what was replied about the several senses of Scripture But he would here corroborate his argument with Dr. Tailer's Judgment in his discourse of the liberty of prophecying And he saies he thinkes me not to be so much esteemed amongst our own Clergy or Laity as he I confesse it Neque de me quisquam vilius sentit quam ipse as one said But though this is very true that my authority is not comparable to his yet it was not rational for my adversary to diminish me because it makes a prejudice to his cause that so weak a man can oppose it and therefore I can spare him in this kind Let my adversary be the Champion of his cause And yet it may be the Reverend and learned Authour he names is not allwaies pleased with whatsoever he said in that book And yet also we can grant what is said by the Doctor who does not say that no Arguments can be drawn from Scripture but from those Scriptures which have many senses neither doth he say that those texts which have many senses do contain points necessary to salvation nor doth he say that if they did contain points necessary they are not elsewhere explained by more clear texts or may be explained for so he should disagree from St. Austin as before But to say no more let the Doctor have the honour with all my heart of the umpirage of the controversie in the example which my adversary hath put Take for an example those four words This is my body Indeed some there are which would have five words hoc est enim corpus meum And also it may be said that he may exceed in his number of interpretations of these words unless he takes in their own many differences hereabouts in the manner and time of the conversion they will hardly come up to two hundred divers interpretations And whereas he saies that we say that they are spoken in a figurative sense and not in their natural sense we can answer that we do deny the literal sense and do not deny that the figurative sense may be said in a good sort natural to the Sacramental use by reason of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is betwixt the signe and the thing Signified And much more might be said herein but let this point be compromised to the doctour in that excellent book which he hath lately written on purpose He saies all that I can say and more Here he would make good another Argument of his the Scripture useth the imperative mood as well when it counsels as when it commands He asks now what infallible means we have to know what is recommended to us as a counsel or as a precept to be kept under pain of damnation We answer first supposing the doctrine of counsels to be right and sound yet are they in no great danger by the uncertainty whether such a thing is proposed by way of counsels or precept since they hold it to be a thing of greater perfection to performe a counsel Therefore if they take a thing of counsel for a thing of command there is no danger surely in doing more then they are simply commanded to So then if this were all it would be no such difficulty as to practise because if they doe whatsoever is proposed pro imperio in the imperative mood there is no danger if it be commanded it was necessary if counselled there is greater perfection and an accidental reward above the essential God can distinguish which is which though they cannot and surely will if their opinion be true reward them accordingly And if there be any
determin that grave question without calling a Council Ans first if those termes could not attend an absolute negation of power they are denied For they that were infallible in their doctrine could have severally determined that controversie as we take power absolutely as well as St. Peter confirmed St. Pauls doctrine according to them But he seemes to mean it in a qualified sense after the manner of Aquinas distinction of necessity therefore thus he for this is necessary for the better conviction of heretickes fuller satisfaction of the weaker sort and further comfort of the whole Church This end of calling a Council upon such a necessity I suppose he reflects to the Council of the Apostles as if the sense should be they could not conveniently and upon the supposition of such ends determine that grave question without calling a Council but then we are not under an absolute necessity of a Council And untill this be proved my adversaries have done nothing for a necessity of convenience of a Council will not serve their purpose because we can grant it But 2. we say this example is not for his turn because this Council was called upon a question about things in their nature not necessary but we are upon the debate of the absolute necessity of councils in and for things necessary not things of scandall only and yet again 3. As it is commonly noted they in their Councils cannot conclude their determinations as in that Council of the Apostles it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to uâ— because those Apostles were infallible in their discourse as well a in their conclusions but those who are now members of Councils are confessed by stapleton to be fallible in their discourse and how then shall we be sure that they are infallible in the conclusion unles they can prove that though the discourse be not rationall the conclusion will yet be propheticall And yet 4. The Apostles themselves proceeded to the determination of this question by principles of Scripture therefore Scripture is the highest principle to raise faith even in things of controversie And this concludes against them who make the Church in businesses of faith to be the highest principle And therefore also whatsoever binds the Christian faith hath its obligation by vertue of Scripture So then nothing he saies doth sufficiently render that sense or use he makes of that Text Dic ecclesiae And yet he hath not then found though he does Thrasonically say so a Iudge in matters of faith a living Iudge an infallible Iudge excluding all possibility of errour We can helpe them to finde Judges dicendo pluraliter but such a Judge as he speaks of here he hath no more hope to find then need to seek And yet such a Judge he must have for the justification of Christ's law in the former Text otherwise Christ could not possibly have declared it to be so haynous a crime not to hear the Church being that it might have been no crime at all he obliged all to obey and hear her therefore she cannot lead us into an errour Ans I think we should not have had so many words about such assent if they had not more need thereof then the Text or Christ of their defence they have more necessity of Christs justification then he of theirs His words above have two formes one in an hypotheticall way the other in way of an Enthymem I deny the consequence in both and to them both I suppose one proposition and that is this Christs command to obey doth not inferre impossibility of errour in the Church Simply it is therefore false what he would have to be consequentiall To hear the Church therefore hath two things in it one act which is internall and that is to give assent to what the Church shall order the other an externall act of submission the former may be denied and therefore she may erre the latter may be due and therefore not to be denied And consequently his infallibility of knowledge of this point is not so greaâ— as of those points which are delivered by Scripture namely not understanding it de facto because his knowledge of points delivered by Scripture is de industria small but de posse his knowledge of points of faith delivered by Scripture may be greater then his knowledg of this because it is not delivered by Scripture So that for his Creed I say as the Frenchmen proverbially are wont il ne point damne qui ne le coit he is not damned that doth not believe it there is difference betwixt standing up to what is proposed and standing out against the Church in contempt Absolute belief will then be rational when moral assurance which yet is not alwaies to be had makes Faith And when he hath proved the assumption that the church of Rome is only this Church and by manifest consequence then the Pope shall be no usurper and yet not infallible neither We deny the Postulate with a contradiction because we can deny the Church's definition without a contradiction Then in the seventh and eight numbers he useth plain-evasions In the seventh he tells me that he doth not use that method which I tell him he should have used in some favor to me when I come to use this very method I do foresee that it will so galde you and he saies I would have the burthen shifted off to the other shoulder to avoide present trouble Ans these are his Rhodomontadoes Is not the method a priori more rationall If he can prove the Church infallible and absolute authority to belong to it our obedience must follow but since obedience is ambiguous and distinguishable though obedience in some respect be due yet not on that part which inferres infallibility but on that part which respects authority as we take authority for power 2. There was nothing said by him formerly which I have not fully answered and now the reinforcements but it became him to say so who was more pinched And how will he quits himself in this method we are to see in thâ—â—2 numb And in the eight numb here he tells me the reason why he saies nothing to St. Austins authority produced by me namely lest he should lose his labour but I know a better reason because he will find too much labour to answer it And as quick dispatch the ninth Paragr deserves For he doth not offer any answer to any reason in mine but here snaps in order to a vindication of the Text Matt. 20.7 for his cause He took exceptions at our translation should keep knowledge he renders it shall keep I defended the translation by the possibility of that sense in the Hebrew because it hath no formal subjunctive By the scope of the Text because they are blamed for their default He persists against our translation because all originals he means all copies or indeed all translations he should mean because of what follows speak clearly in the future
Texts confirm the certainty of Traditions we grant it namely of those Traditions which were afterwards written but how do these Texts confirm the certain necessity of those that are not written And therefore thirdly He is mightily disappointed if he conceives those Texts should bind us to stand upon Traditions now more than ever for the formality of Tradition was there sunk in the writing and the matter of Tradition was the same with that which was writtten in his own confession unless he drives the Texts Heterogeneously to his own words And he impingeth upon the same stone again What wise man would put â—ut one light costing him nothing because it will be shining of its own nature unless you will needs have iâ— hidden because he hath now another light but so that even with both those lights many of his houshold will still remain iâ— darkness Ans He supposeth a light added to a light It is well then that Scripture is assured to be one light but his Tradition should be compared to a light when there is no other light namely when the Scripture is defective Secondly If he thinks Tradition is a light costing us nothing he may be deceived for it will cost a great deal of Scrutiny since we cannot see it shining of its own nature infallibly And thirdly If some be still in darknese with both those lights then surely they may be more in darkness with but one and that is Tradition therefore they should allow the people the light of the Scripture since both too little as he saies to some But fourthly What if one light put out the other in the true state of the question namely Scripture Tradition superadded in matter And what wise man will light a straw candle in the Fathers expression when the Sun shines the Sun-light of Scripture puts out the straw-light of Traditions condemning those who teach for Doctrines Traditions of men which the Romanist does in some proportion And fifthly what wise man would have such a light which serves his turn best when it shines least for Traditions if we believe our Adversaries are a covered dish dainties to be kept private for those who are fit to receive them the more wise and perfect men which may teach them to others The mystery of Salvation that is made common by writing but the mystery of Tradition is put under a bushel The mystery of the Trinity is delivered in Scripture but the mystery of the Trent Traditions must not be familiarly known So then say they what they will or can we shall sooner find an extinguisher for the light of the rush candle than they for the light of the Sun But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us we should have had a more certain Tradition given us So he delivers my words which were not so but thus If Scripture had not been left to us we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us as the Gospel was before it was written Now some difference there is betwixt given us and left us for that which is left to us is intended for our constant use which that which is given doth not connotate So some Pontificians will say the Scripture was given upon particular occasion but was not left to the Church as a fixed universal rule But there is yet more betwixt us about my words we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us so I said he reports me thus we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us A more certain Tradition given and a Tradition more certainly conveighed are not altogether the same the former supposeth the matter of Tradition as not certain and this we can deny as to those times when there was no Scripture as written the other speaks de modo tradendi which comes closer to our question For we can perswade our selves that God who is graciously provident for his Church wherein he hath placed his Name would have taken care that if there had not been a certain direction in writing the matter of necessary Doctrine and practice should have been more certainly communicated to us So then he thrives very little by compare of the Christian Church with the Jewish although the Christian Church be more noble For first the compare must be of the Jewish with the whole Christian Church because the Jewish Church Proselyts being included therein namely Proselyts of the Covenant as they were distinguished was all the Church there was And secondly Because no part of the whole Church can compare with the Jewish Church as to priviledges and then by this reckoning how little of Nobility will fall to their share Thirdly As the Tradition which was it whereby the matter of Scripture was proposed was for the time necessary before the matter of Scripture was written so also must the Tradition of the Christian Church be considered as in relation to the time before which the matter of the New Testament was written therefore he should have pleaded if he would have it done patly that there was any Tradition of Faith after the Old Law was written beside what was written which was to be believed unto Salvation equally to what was written and then have drawn down a parallel Line of proportion of the same though he would have more nobility for the Christian Church Thirdly If the nobleness of a Church be antecedent to more certain Tradition as he thinks then how happened it that there was so little a time betwixt the preaching of the Gospel and the writing of it It seems then if God provides for Churches according to the nobleness of them that the better provision for the Church is by Scripture The Christian then hath a more certain way of Faith than by Tradition And as for means of securing Tradition in the Christian Church which he compares with the Jewish in he hath no cause to bragg For first they cannot say or prove that they have all Traditions in number formal and material Secondly They do not practice all How many are there which St. Basil speaks of in his Tract de Sp. Sanct. which they observe not Thirdly The safety of them is in the whole Church and yet forsooth every one must not know them Fourthly If so then have they reason to blush that they have been more careful to keep Tradition than Scripture and particularly of the Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew and is this for their credit Fifthly Are the Scriptures preserved uncorrupt or not If not how have they been faithful as before If so then why do their learned men obtrude the Authentiqueness of their Latin upon this account that when this Edition was made the Scriptures were pure and uncorrupted but corrupted since Again the Tradition of Christ's Primitive Church before the Scripture was written and sufficiently promulged was to be believed upon her sole Authority Ans If he takes that Tradition inclusively to the Apostles who preached that which they did write
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
against the Arrians But it may be the Arrians did not care for the Authority of a Council and therefore St. Austin waved the Nicene Council Yea Then how is the Authority of a Council a Catholick remedy and then it seemes the Nicene Fathers determined against them not by their Authority which they cared not for but by the Scripture So then the disteem of that Council of Ariminum was upon respect to the matter of the definitions And so a Council was not in their opinion ipso facto infallible Therefore he procceds in a fallacy if he argues thus it was never by the Fathers no nor by the Church of England numbred amongst the foure first Councils therefore it was rejected because it was not accounted a lawful Council Because it was rejected therefore for this cause doth not follow because the genus doth contein potentially more species It was refused upon dislike of the matter it seemes as before And as for the reason why it was not lawful he toucheth not here and it was cashiered before He goes on and you might as well thinke that I might prevaile against you by only citing the Council of Trent c. Ans surely the Council of Ariminum in all respects considerable was as hopeful towards infallibility as the Council of Trent it may be more by a a greater number of Bishops and this with my adversary should have borne some weight who should think that multitude of Counsellours is halfe an argument of truth because he would not place infallibility in a singular person as the Jesuit but in a Council with the Pope And if he saies that there was wanting in the Council of Ariminum the presence or consent of the Bishop of Rome we can easily answer that he then had but a single suffrage and there were some hundreds of Bishops more in the Council of Ariminum then were at the Council of Trent Yea also some Decrees of the Council of Trent proceeded without the Pope's confirmation as before But I think they are both alike the Council of Ariminum and the Council of Trent in being deceived Only I think that St. Austin had less to say against the illegality of the Council of Ariminum then we have to say against the Council of Trent And therefore we may follow St. Austin and if he appealed from the Council of Ariminum to Scripture we may as well appeal from that of Trent if they would urge it He saies St. Austin in vaine had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it Ans Me thinkes if I may say so this is not very judiciously spoken because if Maximinus urged the Council of Ariminum he was bound by equall law to be dealt with by the Nicene Council If Maximinus had not urged the Council of Ariminum it had seemed that the Arrian had not a perswasion that this Controversie should be otherwise handled then by Scripture And if he were well furnished with other arguments out of Scripture admitted by him as he it seemes supposeth that he might be what need then of the infallibility of the Church in Councils And it seemes it is the shorter way and more expedite against Hereticks by Scripture as he confesseth in the words following that St. Austin intended by them only at that time to overthrow him and not to medle with a long contention fit to fill a book alone aboue the validity of the Council of Nice and invalidity of that of Ariminum Put then these things together St. Austin it seemes might be sufficiently furnished with arguments out of Scripture against the Arrian he might by them only overthrow him it is a voluminous work to prove the legality of one Council and the illegality of another the Arrian scoffed at the Council of Nice therefore the convenient and easie way of proceeding with and against Hereticks is by Scripture not by the Authority of the Church And this interpretative is the yeilding of the cause And yet if they will yet think Councils as such to be infallible let them think upon that Canon of Nice declaring equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria to Rome and let them think of the Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Constantinople that the Bishop of Constantinople should be equal in his limits to the Bishop of Rome The Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Nestorius that Peter and Iohn were of equal dignity Let them therefore consider well what they have to do for if Councils be not infallible they are in an errour if Councils be infallible they are not because they have declared against them Let them therefore stand on fall by Scripture Let them try it so as St. Austin did N. 29. His discourse herein is fully put into this form all errours in or against things necessary are plainely determined by Scripture This infallibility of the Church is not plainly determined against by Scripture therefore But therefore what That this is no errour Nay that is not rightly concluded but that it is not an errour in things necessary All errours are not in things necessary Therefore if it concludes as it should it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for it is enough to us that it be an errour suppose it were not an errour in things necessary If it concludes that therefore it is no errour it concludes falsly 2. Though the proposition be our doctrine the assumption supposeth that which is not necessary to be granted by us that this infallibility of the Church is an errour in things necessary we do not deny it to be so but we are not by any arguments constrained to say so For though we should not hold it an errour in necessaries yet is it necessary to reject it as an errour knowing it to be so And 3. We say to the assumption that it is sufficiently enough determined against by Scripture namely as necessary to be in the Church because in the Scripture sufficiency to salvation is asserted without it as before And 4. The affirmative should have been proved by them who assert it not the negative to be proved by us And as towards his proof of the assumption that the Scripture is not so clear against this as for this we have nothing to say because he hath nothing to prove it Scaurus nega◠it beggs And we can say better we have proved the contrary N. 29. Here he resumes a Text for them St. Matthew 28. vlt. I made answer to it before that it doth not extend equall assistance to all ages of the Church He now urgeth me to shew a Text wherein the assistance which was infallible in the first age should not be for the Second or Third age he saies to me against your reasons we have our reasons Ans He is here wanting in two offices first in proving that that Text doth extend equal assistance to all ages of the Church for which the respondent is to waite with his
because they may erre As it was said of the Milesians they were not fools but they could doe foolish things So though they be learned men though great Divines yet may they possibly propose that which is not so They reason points by the Scripture which was wont as is noted to be laid in the middle when they were in Council but since they goe to discourse from Scripture in things doubtful and doe not see all Conclusions in principles of Scripture by way of Intelligence it is possible for them not rightly to apply some principles of Scripture to some particular cases Therefore since they have not a power not to erre we have a power to suspend our Faith nay we cannot give it without evidence of Truth Yet since they have a power to order us we have a Duty not to oppose or disturb And thus this Doctrine makes way for Faith not for Heresie since we may differ from the Opinions of the Church even defined and yet not be Hereticks because the formality of the Heretick hath it self in the will and wilful blindnesse is more apt to make Hereticks then a sober disquisition which would know what it doth beleeve For Beleef is not divided against Knowledge but Science Whereas you say afterwards in your Reply that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and Manners and the Church the ground of our beleef neverthelesse I answer I am very glad you confesse that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and Manners But this confession will destroy your Position that the Church is the ground of our beleef in your sense For if that be our Rule Ruling then our beleef is to be ruled by that For as Clemens Alexandrinus in the 7. of his Stromata saith in this matter That Principle which needs another Principle is not a Principle so that Rule which needs another Rule how is it a Rule Is it an adaequate Rule or not If so then where are your Traditions If not how a Rule of Faith and Manners Is it sufficient or not If sufficient then what necessity of your Proposal of the Church especially for things necessary which are plain If not sufficient then how a Rule of Faith and Manners And if both the Scripture and the Church be both Grounds of beleef then either coordinate or subordinate Not coordinate for then the voyce of the Church must be equal to the VVord of God without the VVord of God and who then will be guilty of the phanatical Spirit If subordinate then the principal ground makes the rest of Faith And when I know Gods Revelation in Scripture what need I goe to the Church for authority or Interpretation And besides where there is need of Interpretation although it doth belong to the Church to interpret yet cannot we ground a beleef in that interpretation unlesse it did appear that the Church doth interpret infallibly But this is not yet proved therfore your reason is not valid And if you say the Church cannot erre because it goeth by the expositions of the antient Fathers do but consider how hardly we can settle and fixe belief therein For who hath read them all yea how few know them all and who knowes whether he that doth know them and hath read them all doth give us a right account of them who can exactly distinguish betwixt those which are true and those which are false who can accurately discern of the true Fathers which pieces are true which are foisted in who can perfectly judge all their idioms of speech who can reconcile the differences betwixt one and another yea who can compose the differences betwixt themselves And that Text which you produce of Saint Peter will do you no good for we do not magnifie private interpretations We say private men should advise with the Church but are we sure that she hath hit the right sense But as for the Text it is impertinently produced if it be rightly interpreted No Prophecy of Scripture is of private Declaration and to this effect the Syriack No Prophetical solution is of private writing was not written by a private spirit for so it best agrees with that which followes in the last verse for Prophecy was not brought to us at any time by the will of Man c. And after the same manner doth Cajetan comment upon the place he toucheth the difference between Sciences written and Prophecies written in this regard that a Learned Man teacheth and writeth according to his own Interpretation those things which do appear in the light of his Agent intellect but the Prophet doth say and write those things which appear under the light of Divine Revelation not according to the interpretation of his own judgment So he So then the Text relates to those who wrote Scripture not to those who should interpret it being written And besides when private Mendo interpret Scripture for themselves they are not to interpret it by private meanes but by it self comparing place with place and discerning the sense of that which is obscure by that which is more plain And if it be a passage that is very obscure and there be no other passage more clear to illustrate it it is not like to be a point without the belief whereof there is no Salvation Well said the Greek Nilus to accuse the Scripture is all one as if one should accuse God but God is without blame It followes in your Reply and all this spoken here and in the position c. of the Church is meant of such a Church as doth truly deserve the name of Catholique Answ This I said enough to at the beginning But you seem to be very loath to own the Church of Rome and to avouch her and yet you would seem to manage the point which they make much of as they as if you had some minde to be a true Catholique abstractedly from Rome and so indeed you may be in the antient sense as they used it for those who were Orthodoxal Yet for what Church you reserve those great titles and what Church in your esteem doth deserve the name of Catholique I know not You are very close in this But let me now at least conclude that if the Catholique Church be not the ground of Faith in your sense surely the Roman is not And now all that I have to do is to justifie two expressions of mine which you are pleased to carp at The one is that I said the Pontificians do hold the proposal of the Church of Rome to be the formal object of their faith You say that you must assure the answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome in its proposal to be the formal object of their Faith as he doth impose upon them for that they acknowledge to be the Revelation of God or the authority of God revealing which causes their Belief to be supernatural or Divine c. Answ I am glad my expression gave you occasion thus to expresse