these are plainly enough set down in Scripture if the Roman Church had not disturbed the clear waters for the chief Fisher and if not the Church by positive law cannot appoint that which is absolutely necessary to salvation All things that are of Divine right are not simply necessary to salvation to be sure then what is not of Divine but positive right as the Romans have also distinguished is not simply necessary And therefore whereas he says there are endles Controversies about them I am of his opinion in my sense of the words for they are to no end amongst those who have a sober mind to be directed in them by Scripture at least they are to no end as in order to our dispute because they come not within compasse of absolute necessity to salvation It may be necessary to know how these are to be ordered that they may be ordered rightly but this is not absolutely necessary to salvation yea again if these things were left to the Church we must take the order before the Councils otherwise the Church before the time of Councils had wanted that which was necessary and therefore indeed are they not necessary or else God had been wanting to them in necessaries A third sort of things necessary not plainly set down as he thinks we have in his fourth number Num 4. All being obliged to serve God in a true Church c. This is ambiguously delivered either as in sensu composito being in a true Church they are obliged to serve God in it or are bound to finde out the true Church and then to serve God in it Now though both belong to our duty yet both are not equally necessary because it is possible in that which is not a true Church if so many things be necessary to a true Church as they would have salvation may be had by simple ignorance and gerall repentance And I hope some were saved before a Church with all the integrants of a true Church was framed But in a true Church no man can be saved without serving of God The Church of the Donatists was not accounted by St. Austin nor my Adversary a true Church yet St. Austin did not deny but some might be saved in it Now this is understood by my Adversary in the latter way namely that every one is bound to finde out the true Church and to serve God in it for so it followeth Having a lawfull succession of true Pastors truely ordained themselves and truely ordaining the Priests who must be known to administer true Sacraments in their true matter and forme Preaching also the word of God by lawfull mission Ans Now me thinks the Romans with their mountains should have relation to Montanus who fansied that the Paraclet did by priviledge come into him to make up what was wanting to salvation by inspiration For we must have infallible notes of a Church which the word of God in Scripture hath not appointed to us And we must have things necessary to salvation which the Scripture hath not made necessary yet they must be necessary to salvation for their use Certainly as he gives well the cognisance of a good man so may we also make use of it for a good Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we ought not to judge honest men by their performances but by their purpose so we ought to esteem good Christians not by their happinesse to finde but by their purpose to finde out the true Church which cannot reasonably be done by a lawfull sucession First because this is accidentall not as to salvation onely but as to a true Church and therefore can be no certain and universall rule for how came the first Church which was originall to the Descendants to be a true Church yea secondly how will the true Church be a true Church according to their principles in the time of Antichrist when there is not like to be according to their profession almost any face of a Church How shall it then be discerned by a lawfull succession of Pastors Thirdly this cannot be characteristicall of the Roman Church which they would have to be the onely true Church because the Greek Church may challenge this priviledge also Yea fourthly it is possible that a false Church may so fairly plead a lawfull succession as the Church of the Donatists who had also Bishops as to those who should come a long while after them that it could not be easily discerned by common people and therefore this is not the way so plain and direct as that fools cannot err Yea fifthly we are not to discern true Doctrine by the persons but the persons by the Doctrine according to Tertullian as before and therefore if true Doctrine be not proved by succession as it cannot be because then it should be measured by the person we cannot conclude a true Church by the succession since all sober men will rather argue thus that is a true Church which professeth true Doctrine than that Church professeth true Doctrine because it hath a true succession of Pastors Yea sixthly did my Adversary mean what he said of a particular Church or of the universall Church Not of a particular Church sure for that cannot be the way and Judge of all Christians as he intended But then of the universall Catholick Church Well then he must mean that that is the true Catholick Church which hath a lawfull succession of Pastors namely of Bishops of Rome who is by them called signantly the Pastor of the Church This must be his meaning in reason because the lawfull succession of Pastors in particular Churches is by my Adversary necessary for themselves but not for the Catholick Church which can consist without those parts which are not true and therefore no parts And this is like to be his meaning by his opinion So then the Roman Church he would have here by the premisses to be the true Church as being supposed to have a lawfull succession of Pastors namely Bishops of Rome But how shall we give up our selves in absolute obedience to the guidance of the Roman Church if this were an infallible and constitutive mark of the true Church that it hath a lawfull succession of Pastors For no man can have so much as a morall certitude that there hath been in Rome from St. Peter an interrupted lawfull succession of Pastors much lesse can he have a Divine perswasion thereof For first it can never be proved by Scripture that St. Peter was at Rome I do not deny it that he was ever there but it is no object of faith And the Romanists are shrewdly put to it for a proof when to prove it they would interpret Babylon from which St. Peter writes to be Rome But then Secondly St. Peter should rather have derived the Priviledge of universall jurisdiction and infallible direction to Antioch as is abserved where he sate first seven years as Caranza sets it down and where Christians had their name
Luke 10.16 We say first this seems not to be rightly applyed to the businesse we are about for this was directed not to the Governors of the Church but to the seventy Disciples or Elders which were sent by Christ to preach the VVord Secondly If you doe extend it to the Representative Church yet doth it not command subjection of judgement alwayes to whatsoever is said but not to despise them as is intimated by what followes and he that despiseth you despiseth me VVe may differ without despising And Thirdly If you will from hence argue that whatsoever was determined in a Council was also determined by Christ then Honorius was by Christ determined an Heretick as you may see in the practicks of the sixth Oecumenical Synod as Nilus in his second Book And if you say that the Church cannot erre in a General Council then resolve Nilus the reason why the Pope doth not hear a General Council for if that General Council did not erre as by your argument it must not then the Pope did erre As for the other places of Holy Scripture which you produce of Christs being with his Church to the end of the world and of his promise of leading his Church into all truth VVe answer together First Though the promise be extendible to the end of the world yet it is not necessary to understand it so as that there shall alwaies be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles which is hard to affirm since we cannot say that there is such necessity for such assistance or such dispositions in the Governours of the Church to receive such assistance Secondly The Promise is made good by a sufficient direction of the Church to their end of happinesse although not without possibility of error For every simple error doth not deprive the Church of Salvation and then it may also recover it self from errour by more perusal of the Scriptures But if it may at all erre it hath not the property of a ground of Faith nor a just capacity of an Infallible communication of all things which are to be believed You go on Now this Church whose Authority is thus warranted did precede the Scriptures Answ VVarranted as a Church but not as so not as Infallible Did precede the Scriptures which for a great part were written upon emergent occasions as you say Answ As for the writing of Scriptures and the emergent occasions you may be further referred to Doctor Field whom you made use of against me VVhatsoever the occasion was the end was to make what was written a sufficient rule of Faith and Manners And as for your objection and inference upon it VVe answer with a distinction the Scripture is considerable two wayes either in respect to the substance of Doctrine or secondarily in respect to the manner of delivery by writing in the first regard the Scripture did precede the Church for the Church was begotten by it which to them was as certain as the written to us And if you could make your Traditions of proper name equally certain you would say somewhat And as for Scripture that which is written doth binde though it doth not properly binde as written You say that the Church was called the Pillar and ground of Truth before it was written and so you say might be said of other passages We answer As that place expressed it doth not appear to us that it was so called since first we find it in termes in Saint Pauls Epistle But if so or other like were used before the answer before will serve By all which places the authority of the Church is commended to us and we are referred to the Church as a Guide in all our Doubts So you say and so we say Where is the Adversary How doth this conclude contradictorily We confesse that the Authority of the Church is commended to us in Scripture but not directly in every place you name nor in any is it so commended to us as to ground our Faith We confesse we are referred to the Ministers for Direction and to the Governours for jurisdiction yet are not the Latter Masters of our Faith unto whom we should be bound in a blind Obedience of Universal assent or practice We take their advice but we are not by them determined in our Faith We may beleeve what they say but not because they say it As it is drawn from Scripture so it draweth us If they make it probable that it is so because they say it yet it hath not the certainty of Faith without the Word of God I should be very tender of incompliance with the judgement of the whole Church but yet I must have for my warrant of Faith the Lord saith And although there be no appeal from a General Council yet have they no infallible judgement You proceed even the Scripture it self is beleeved upon the Tradition and authority of the Church Answer This was touched before in the case of Saint Austin and it is in effect answered as before by Doctor Field Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church but we doe not take them to be Canonical by Tradition from the Church The authority of the Church moves me as to the Negative not to dissent but assent is settled to them as such in the way of Faith because they are such In thy Light we shall see Light as the Psalmist speaks Psalm 36.9 or by thy Light so by Scripture we see Scripture Next follows the Expostulation which may be put into this discourse Either we ground our beleef upon the Church or upon our own fancy and private Interpretation of Scripture c. Answer We deny your disjunction VVe ground our beleef neither upon the authority of the Church as you nor upon fancy neither as some have done who have been better friends to Romans then they have been to us as Doctour Whitaker told Campian upon a like imputation of Anabaptastical fancies VVe differ from you because we allow to private Christians a judgement of discretion or discerning which sure is commended in that precept Prove all things in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians 5.21 We differ from those who magnifie their private interpretations because we say they should be directed by their Ministers and ordered by the Bishops the Pastours of the Church chiefly when they are assembled in a General Council wherein is the highest power of Oyer and Terminer as we may speak of hearing and ending differences in the Church yet we cannot say that we are absolutely bound unto their Canons we having the judgement of private discretion and they not the judgement of Infallibility And if you cannot say that they are absolutely without any doubt but true without doubt we can say that we should not absolutely beleeve them Every possible defect of certainty in the Object excludes Faith the certainty whereof admits no falsity Therefore can we not presently yeeld or assent to whatsoever is by them defined
in the windows or walls of Churches Concil Nicen. 2. Act 4. Concil Constant quartum decrevit cundem Imaginum cultum Edit Bin. Tom. 7. p. 1046. what is the object of Adoration And so much the rather will he believe it to be an Error because the second Nicene general Council decreed that Images are to be worship't and denounced an Anathema to all that doubt the Truth of it Does he not think it was an Error in the Council of Chalcedon Concil Chalced. Act. 15. Can 28. Qui Canon genuinus est non obstante Bâ—nii subterfugio Pudendo to Decree unto the Bishop of Constantinople even in Causes Ecclesiastical an aequality of privileges with the Bishop of Rome Or does he not think it was an Error in the * Concil Constantinop III. Act. 13. Vide Notas in vitam Honor. Edit Bin. Tom. 4 p. 572. sixth General Council to condemn Pope Honorius as a Monothelite and to decree that his Name should be razed out of the Church's Diptychs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Concil Florent Definit Edit Bin. To. 8. p. 854. seeing another General Council since held at Florence hath defined the Pope to be the High-Priest over all the world the Successor of St. Peter Christ's Lieutenant The Head of the Church The Father and Teacher of all Christians and one to whom in St. Peter our Lord Jesus Christ did deliver a full Power as well to GOVERN as to feed the Universal Church And did accordingly exauctorate the Council at Constance for seating a Council above a Pope Or is it not thought by Mr Cressy that This Florentine Council was in an Error in Granting the Roman Church a Power of adding to the Creed which the General Council of Chalcedon had forbidden to be done under the Penalty of a Curse as was * ibid. Sess 5. p. 593. observed and urg'd by Pope Vigilius Himself to Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople Let Mr. Cressy but compare the sixth General Council whose famous Canons were made in Trullo with the Tridentine Canons and the General practice of his Church And sure I am He will acknowledge that the one or the other hath foully err'd It was decreed in the sixth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Constant III. Can. 13. To. 5. p. 326. Edit Bin. To. 5. p. 326. That married men without scruple should be admitted into the Priesthood and this without any condition of abstaining thence-forwards from cohabitation lest men should seem to offer Contumely unto God's holy Institution Yea which is most to be observ'd This was a Canon made professedly b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ibid. p. 325 326. against the Canon of the Church of Rome whereunto is confronted the antient Canon which is there said to be of Apostolical Perfection Here the Doctrin and Practice of the Church of Rome is condemn'd by a Council which is owned to be General by the same Church of Rome The Church of Rome is also condemn'd by the same c Ibid. p. 338. General Council in its 55 Canon and commanded to conform to the 65 Canon of the Apostles from which they had scandalously departed under two great Poenalties therein express't To all which if I shall add How the 8th General Council made a peremptory Decree * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Constant IV. Act. 9. Can. 3 Edit Bin. Tom. 7. p. 977. That the Image of Christ is to be worship't as the Gospel of God That whosoever adore's it not shall never see his Face at his second coming never at least by their Goodwill That the Pictures of Angels and all the Saints are in like manner to be adored And that all who think otherwise are to be Anathematiz'd I hope Mr. Cressy and Father Johnson are not such Lovers of Idolatry and Contradiction as not to know and to acknowledge the Fallibility of their Church in a general Council And as on the one side Their stedfast Belief That She cannot err is enough to confirm them in all their Errors So to convince them on the other side of that one Error will make them ready both to see and renounce the Rest That it may seem to be a vain or a needless Thing for any man to be lavish of Time or Labour in a particular Ventilation of other controverted Points whilst This of Infallibility remain's untouch't or undecided For if we shew them the Absurdities of Bread and Wine being transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ or of being so transmuted into Human Flesh and Blood as to retain both the Colour Touch and Tast and all other Adjuncts of Bread and Wine or of its so beginning now to be in the Act of Consecration the numerical Body of a crucified Jesus as to have been the very same under Pontius Pilate as well as in the Virgin 's Womb or of its beginning to be as often and of as many several Ages as the Priests at their Altars shall please to make it or of its being the same Body whether eaten by a Christian or by a Dog They will defend themselves with This That though 't is absurd and impossible yet it is necessarily true because 't is taught by That Church which cannot deceive or be deceiv'd Whereas if once we can convince them that she is able to be deceiv'd who had taught them to believe she is undeceivable and that in matters of greatest moment They cannot chuse but disapprove and forsake her too as the greatest Deceiver in all the world Thus I have done what you desir'd if not as amply or as well yet at least as my Time or my want of Time rather would give me leave Had I the Tithe of that Leisure I once injoy'd I might have long ago reply'd to Mr. Cressy's whole Book which I can hardly now say I have wholly read Nor indeed do I intend to consider more of it then here I have partly because I am inform'd that the whole is undertaken by other men partly becaule I am prohibited both by mine Enemies and my Friends though in several senses and to several ends but chiefly because I am forbidden by less-dispensable Employments For although I must confess I think the Task very easie and such as hath nothing in it of difficult besides the length which Mr. Cressy's Misadventures would make unavoidable upon so many and ample subjects so as his strength doth chiefly lie in the number and nature of his Infirmities which nakedly to observe were to write a Just Volume yet supposing a Camel already loaded with the maximum quod sic that his back will bear the Addition of a Feather may serve to break it Some may think me Insufficient others Indulgent to my Ease and I am as careless as they unkind But I have Witnesses to my Comfort both within and without me And God above is my Witness too That I have little or
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
also confesse yet I also say that this Church of Christ must be confessed to be Infallible But withall I would have every one know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawful General Councel cannot erre for it is no necessary Article of Faith to believe that the Pope or head of the Church cannot erre when he defineth without a General Councel Now that this definition of a whole General Councel is Infallible ought not to seem strange to any Christian for who can think it strange that Christ for the secure direction of the first Christians whom the Apostles converted should give this Infallibility to all and every one of the Apostles and that he should regard so little the secure direction of all other Christians who were to be from the Apostles time to the end of the world that for their sakes for the secure direction of their Souls he would not give this Infallibility so much as to one Man no not to all the Prelats of Christianity assembled together with their head to define matters most necessary and in which all error would be most pernicious who I say could think this strange especially being this gift of Infallibility is given not for their private sakes to whom it is given but for the universal good and necessary direction concord and perpetual unity of the whole Church You must acknowledge that he gave Infallibility of Doctrine to all those who did write any small part of the Old or New Scripture He gave it to David though he was an Adulterer he gave it to Solomon who proved not only a most vicious Man in Life but who for his own person in point of Faith came to fall into Worshipping of Idols This you will not have thought strange but you will hold it Incredible that he should give this Infallibility not to one Man but the whole Church represented in a General Councel Let us passe on further yet and see how firmly this Infallibility is grounded I have above shewed how strongly it is grounded on those words of God promising a Holy way a way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it See here the third Number In the eight Number I have shewed that we cannot ground that Faith by which we believe the Sabbath to be changed to the Sunday upon Scripture but we must ground it upon the Tradition of the Church which if it be not Infallible we have no Infallible Ground at all for this point And in the ninth Number I have shewed the self-same to be about eating Blood or Chickens or any thing that is strangled In the 11 12 and 13. Number I have demonstrated that by the Scripture we cannot know which is true Scripture which is false which Books be Infallibly the Word of God which not for the Scripture hath not one Text in which it telleth us this and therefore for this Important point of Faith we can finde no other sure Ground then the Tradition of an Infallible Church for a fallible Tradition may deceive us In the 14. Number I have shewed that when Controversies arise as most and most Important Controversies do arise about the true meaning of the Scripture even after we have conferred all places together and looked upon the Original Languages the the Controversies still remain undecided and no Infallible way can be found to decide them by Scripture There is therefore no Infallible way to decide them if the decision and definition of the whole Church in a General Councel be not Infallible This is so clear that to the wonder of the world Luther himself in his Book of the Power of the Pope writeth thus We are not certain of any private Man that he hath the Revelation of the Father The Church alone it is of which it is not lawful to doubt So he In the 15. Number I have shewed that there be many points necessarily to be believed under pain of damnation which points are not at all set down in any clear Scripture For these points it is manifest that we can have no other ground then the Authority of the Church If this be not Infallible then we have onely fallible ground which cannot be a ground of Faith In the 16. Number I have confirmed the same Doctrine by the Authority of Saint Austin and Saint Chrysostome In the 17. Number I have proved this Doctrine clearly out of Gods Promise that he would build this his Church upon a Rock and that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it which the Gates of Hell might easily do if the Church could come to teach damnable errors carrying her and her Children into the Gates of Hell it self The same in the same place I have proved by Gods commanding us to Tell the Church and commanding us to hold all those who will not hear the Church as Publicans and Heathens and by making good in Heaven the Sentence of the Church given upon Earth which he would not do if the Church should have at any time failed in her definition and that in points damnably erroneous In the 18. Number I have alledged other Texts still proving the same In the 19. Number I have shewed that for two Thousand years together before the Scriptures were written the true believers had no other sure ground of their Faith but the Authority of the Church which if it had been fallible the very ground of their Faith had been groundlesse and none at all The first Believers also and many whole Nations had no other ground then the said Authority of the Church as there I have shewed out of Saint Irenaeus and it is clear of it self for they did not build their Faith on any Scriptures Thus far I have gone already in the proof of the Infallibility of the Church Now I go on with those words of Saint Paul 1 Tim. 3. v. 15. where the Church of the living God is called The Pillar and Ground of Truth May not Men rely securely upon the Pillar of Truth May they not ground themselves assuredly on the ground of Truth No ground being surer ground and more infallible then the ground of Truth it self Yea my Adversary having found a place in St. Irenaeus calling the Scripture the Foundation and Pillar of Faith doth infer that if it be so then it is the ground and cause of our faith If this consequence be strong which I deny not then is it yet a stronger that the Truth is no where surer grounded then upon the Pillar and Foundation of Truth But my Adversary would take this place of St. Paul from me because he saith This expression may very reasonably be referred not to the Church but to the mystery of Godlyness and so be an Hebrew form c. Surely he forgot that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew but in Greek and then again No Hebrew form in the world can make the sense he intends What can be
use my Liberty for your good If you had a mind to leave nothing in my reply of moment unanswered you would have followed me as a disputant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you would have opposed distinction to some incident arguments for professedly the answerer is not to dispute You would have given me answer to answer interpretation to testimonies with shewing either their impertinency or invaliditie And that excuse of yours lest you should be too long is surely too short to cover you That is not long whereof nothing can be abated as he said and that is my excuse And surely your Treatise is too long not only by your many repetitions which swell your paper but would have been too long had it been lesse it is too long by it self Who ever answered a rejoynder with a Treatise Shall I say that by your form of a Treatise it may seem that you have more mind to treat then to fight I am loath to be so bold neither doth it become my spirit to tell you that you do not stand your ground but you do not neither conclude contradictorily if your Treatise did prove that the authoritie of your Church is the ground of Faith in the Divinitie of the Scripture and in case of Controversie For your first paper spoke universally my Answer denied it and now you would prove it if you could particularly If you would conclude contradictorily to me you should have concluded in the same quantitie affirmatively to my negative This you here seem not to intend yet in other parts of your Treatise you would contend it And in the end you would arm your Treatise against me as if there were no difference betwixt Positive and Oppositive Divinity And this you doe by references but you should not have put the suit to reference without my consent So much for the Preface After the Preface you come to the Proof of the Title You mean the Title of this Paper which surely needs not to be proved because it is not delivered by way of Affirmation but of Disquisition ANd as for the Similitude you say of St. Anselme we like it very well For if the Tables be turned it doth very aptly belong to you who if you have not with a Roman contention for Masterie pulled out the Eyes of Men yet have put out the Light not allowing them the use of the Scripture you shut up the people in Darknesse and will not let them see the Sun of Righteousnesse in his own Orb of Scripture for fear it may be he should not seem now to rise but to go down in Rome and instead hereof you leave Men to walk by the Light of the Pope whom one compared to the Sun as the Emperour to the Moon Christ saith Search the Scriptures you say not yea you take away the use of all humble seeking of God for the knowledge of Truth because you have said that we must all submit our assents to the determinations of the Church So you see how your Opinion is practically impious and is disagreeable to your own directions For you say if they should seek of God they should find Onely you say we should set all passions prejudice aside with a calm humble mind beg of God to give us this grace of seeking truth Surely this Qualification of our addresse to God for the finding of Truth is very good and I would it were as well practised as delivered but let the world judge who is like to be most wanting in this Devotion and to exceed in passion and prejudice He who affirms all to be delivered infallibly by the Church or he that searcheth in Scripture particular Truths Infallibility pretended easily makes any man passionate against difference unlesse indeed he could make it good And he that is infallible is in right capacitie sure to have a necessary prejudice against different Opinions Neither since the times of the Apostles hath humilitie been usually seen to â—â—â—p companie with infallibilitie not that he who is most humble is not most likely not to erre but that he who saith he cannot erre is most likely not to be humble but as for prejudice by Education which you speak of also may I not as well retort it upon you I think in some respects it is not so applicable to me Indeed we do not inherit Religion as Lands but if when we come to abilitie of discerning which your Religion in its Principles will never let you come to we see good cause for our Religion Surely we have no reason to leave it because it was our Fathers although we doe not embrace it because it was our Fathers The relation it hath to our Ancestours hath no more moment in it then the Church may have upon you namely to be a considerable motive not to be your ultimate resolution thus for the first number of your proof 〈◊〉 that it is 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 even with you for the similitude by a saying of Tertullian in his Apologet at the end of the 9. chapter Caetiâ—â—s dâ— species facile concurrunt ut qua non vident qua sunt videre viatantur quae non â—â—nt So while you do not see what exceptions there are against you you see more see what are not exceptions against us and our way of Faith But therefore in your second Number you will prove your way by Scripture We now come to it And your Text is Esay the 35. from the fourth Verse to the ninth by parcels Say to the faint-hearted Take courage and fear not behold God himselfe will come and save you then shall the eyes of the Blind be lightned and the eares of the Deaf be opened and there shall be a path and a way and it shall be called an Holy way and this shall be unto you a direct way so that fools cannot erre by it Thus you order the Testimony To this we say 1. Whether it be intended by the Holy Ghost to respect the Primitive Church Christian mystically through the Jewish we cannot be certain but sure we may be that in the Letter it doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from captivity And therefore it may be you â—earing that this should be taken notice of do wisely leave out those passages which may seem to incline the Text to that sense and you take only that which you think is for your turn So you know who would have deceived Christ by omitting that part of Scripture which was against him although you will not allow to the people the Liberty of Scripture yet let us have all for our life in the dispute And it there be a mystical sense here yet you know the rule of Divines which is also not denyed by yours that mystical Divinity is not argumentative unlesse namely the mystical sense be expressed in Scripture which you are here to demonstrate 2. If it be understood of the Primitive Church through the Jewish as Saint Hierome indeed doth comment upon it
yet will it not 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 unlesse you can prove that whatsoever priviledges were promised to the first Church in the times of the Apostles should in full dimensions be alwayes extended to your Church and your Church onely Therefore your Isidor Clarius doth apply this Text to the time of our Saviour when he did make the Blind to See the Lame to Walk as he sent word to John the Baptist And therefore since it was signally accomplished then we cannot urge the performance of it in that equality in a sense spiritual which also seems to be acknowledged by Saint Hierome upon the place where the opening of the Ears of the Deaf he doth apply to the Scripture Preached and the way he saies to be God Now then as we cannot solidly argue from the promise of pouring out the gifts of the Holy Spirit which was solemnly and subfâ—â—a visibile made good upon the Apostles as â—oâ—hâ— Peter declared that there shall be the like effusion of immediate gifts upon the Church in the following ages which some Sectaries would plead so neither can we rationally conclude from this promise which was as that excellent manner and in the Letter perfected by our Saviour Christ that it shall be continued to any Church iâ— that measure of a spiritual kind If we cannot evince the same perfection in the same kinde surely can we not by our accommodation of sense evince the same perfection in another kind upon the former consideration because it is mystical and that not argumentative 3. This path and this way and this holy way so that fools cannot erre is upon supposition promised to the Church Is it not Well then if it be promised to the Church then the Church is not that way for that way is promised to the Church so that the Church is not absolutely that way but so far as it goeth that way which is as much as was said before and is not yet answered that the Church is regula regulata not regulans Take then the matter thus that way which the Church goes we must goâ—â— The Church goes by the way of Gods-Word revealed and so must we therefore we are not bound to follow the Church with blind obedience which excludes Faith because that includes Knowledge although it be contradistinguished to Science Fourthly If the promise did belong to the Church in all times yet not to any Church of one denomination therefore untill you can prove that your Church is all this makes nothing for you Particular Churches have not those properties which belong to the Universal Church as such And if you make a proof of the Church to be the holy way because the Church is holy how easily is that undone because there is more reason that the Scripture should be the holy way for that is perfectly holy or the Holy Ghost is the Judge because he is essentially holy but neither is the Church perfectly holy here nor essentially holy not in Heaven And besides secondly the Holy Church if you understand it with relation to the Creed as in your former Paper it is to be taken of the Church invisible which as such is on way And thus I have slighted your strong hold as it seems to you for hitherto you do fly very often In your third Number you come to an assertion of the necessity of an Infallible Judge You say that all Christians of whatsoever Religion do agree in this that there must be one Judge of all Controversies and Doubts which either be or can be in Religion So you You speak very largely of your supposition as if it were agreed to by all Christians but you do not consider that you do leave out that which makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the state of the question whether there must be an Infallible Judge on Earth for that is not consented to on all hands by all Religions indeed by none but yours That God either essentially taken or personally the Holy Ghost is the Supreme Universal Infallible Judge and onely in whose Authority we rest and whose word is the Ground of Faith we hold Under him subordinate Judges there are but not Infallible neither is it by your reason sufficiently confirmed that there should be on Earth any Infallible Judge For the defect of such a Judge on Earth doth not leave us free without any fault to follow our own private judgement in holding what we will For first it is impossible for us to hold what we will in our judgements We may possibly though not morally professe what we will although contrary to our judgements as many doe but we cannot assent to what we will because our Understanding is not free to take which part of the opposition it pleaseth by way of Will for it embraceth Truth naturally as it sees it and it cannot give a rational assent without a due conviction and therefore your implicite Faith is false and null Secondly We do not say that we should follow our own judgement of discretion without meanes of regulating our judgement but yet after we have perused the Definitions of Councils and Sentences of the Fathers we cannot resigne up our Assents to their Dictates upon their account but do examine them as the Beraeans did that which Saint Paul said untill we can finde them resolved into the Infallible rule of Holy Scripture For let me ask a Papist according to the renour of your first Paper What doth he believe he answers that which the Church believeth and why doth he believe it because the Church believeth it and why doth the Church believe it because it received it from the first Church through the Sentences of the Fathers or the Determinations of Councils Well but how shall the People know whether this Tradition of Doctrine is truly discerned and faithfully delivered but if so why is he bound to believe the first Church because either they were the Apostles oâ— had it from the Apostles And why doth he believe the Apostles Because they were inspired by the Holy Ghost Well in what they wroâ—e or in what they spoke or both In both Well but how do we know what they spoke We know what they wrote bears witnesse of it self so doth not to us what they spoke so that although they were inspired in whaâ— they spoke yet we know not what they spoke Neither can we be assured by a Divine Faith that what of them was not written is certainly derived And therefore all of Faith must be terminated and determined in that which is written And as towards Controversies we say thirdly that Christ hath sufficiently provided for the Salvation of Man in regard of means of knowledge without an Infallible Judge on Earth of their Controversies because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture and for matters of question we are not in any such danger if we do our endevour according to our condition to finde out Truth and do dispose our selves to Belief as we shall see
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
must prove that they were and ought to be infallibly determined by the Church upon necessity of salvation because you would conclude your postulate of the necessity of an infallible Judge Now then if those things were not infallibly determined the instances thereof are of no use to you And you may consider that we may in things of practice which in their nature are of free Observation as being neither commanded or forbidden by the Scripture and should follow the Church therefore to bring it to an issue Either this Poedobaptisme was Infallibly followed by the Church or not if infallibly it was so by the moments of Paedobaptisme in Scripture although not perspicuous If not infallibly yet might they follow the Church and should in this Case because if it had been free to them to have done so or not in regard of the thing yet should they have gone in the way of the Church when there was nothing to the contrary much more should they conform in this which had that reason in the Analogy of Scripture and therefore this Testimony of the Father need not move us wheresoever we find it for I cannot find it by your direction Give me some better direction to find the following of the Tradition of the Church to be the most true and inviolable Rule of Truth reduplicatively namely upon its own account and in things necessary then I shall say more or yield He holdeth therefore you say the Tradition of the Church so infallible that it may be a ground of Faith Here are two things to be said First that he holdeth so of Tradition which by other Testimonies is to be proved Since Secondly he doth not hold it therefore of Tradition since these words of Saint Austin doe not draw after them the nature of Tradition in your sence which doth not depend upon the written Word as this doth for the reason of it And you believe Saint Paul taught him so in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2.15 Hold the Traditions which you have been taught whether by word or by our Epistle To this we answer premising the state of the Question whether Doctrine of Faith not depending upon the word written do oblige Faith equally to Scripture Now we say that these Traditions might respect Order and Ceremony or History and so comes not within compass of the Question in regard of the matter Secondly Though it will not please Estius upon the place yet nothing hinders but that it might be meant of the same matter which was first preached then written and then should hold it or them as first preached then written and this is a second answer in the place doth come into our question in respect of the matter for the Syriack renders it Mandats Commandements which do not signifie formally matters of Faith Thirdly The Thessalonians might be sure that what they had from him by word was such as they should believe equally to what was written but so cannot we be of your Doctrines of Faith which you say are handed from Generation to Generation Make us as sure of them in regard of Divine Inspiration and communication to us then urge our Obedience equal And this will give you an account of Saint Chrysostome upon the place who meaneth no otherwise then that which they had from God by him whether in word or writing they should hold which they could beleeve we can not for such Traditions having nâ—t that certainty of them Read the whole of him upon that Text and also do not passe by the Observation of this modesty herein we may think it worthy of beleef namely the Tradition of the Church which whether he means it of things of Discipline and order wherein we deny not conformity to the Church we are not sure of but there come not up to our Question for they are not of Faith and do not equally oblige And hitherto now you have gone about to assure Christians of a necessity of an infallible Judge now in your 17. Paragr you will assume that the Catholique Church is the Judge Then the Roman to be the Catholique prudently The text you name for the Catholick Church is that of Saint Matthew in his 16 Chap. the 18 Verse I say unto thee thou art Peter that is to S. Peter by name thou art Peter that is thou art a rock and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it c. And now surely you are at your strong hold which you think cannot be undermined or stormed true if your application of it were as sure as it But we are not careful to answer you in this assault First we deny your interpretation of the name of Peter you interpret the Greek that is a rock it is denied the Greek word doth not ordinarily and not here signifie a rock And if you will not believe me take this argument Cephas signifieth a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Petrus signifieth as Cephas therefore a stone Both propositions you have proved as you may see in S. John 1.42 43. as in the Syriack Thou shalt be called Cephas that is a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Greek which is interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stone And because Cephas is known in Siriack to signifie a stone therefore the Syriack doth not add these words which is interpreted and that Petrus signifieth as Cephas you have there for Cephas is interpreted by Petrus therefore your interpretation is not right Secondly If you say as you did before that the Hebrew was the Original of Saint Matthew's Gospel then are you not nearly obliged to the Syriack which is but a dialect thereof nay likely the very Dialect of Hebrew wherein it was first written if not in Greek and then not onely can you not interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rock but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither and then you cannot render the following words as you do And upon this Rock c. For the words in the Syriack are letter for letter the same both the name of the Apostles and the word which you render a Rock are the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both and therefore if you will stand to the Syriack it will come to this Thou art a stone and upon this stone will I build my Church And this will have fair Correspondence with that of Saint Paul in the same Metaphor Ephes 2.20 Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone So that the priviledge of Saint Peter here was onely this to lay as it were the first stone in this Foundation Nay thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament more then once signifieth a stone Rom. 9. last it is synonymically joyned there with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned also to the same Metaphor in that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this must signifie a
support against falling and therefore Isidor Clarius and Estius doe interpret it by firmamentum not fundamentum So the Church holds forth and holds up the Truth Therefore your meaning of Foundation above ground hath neither Foundation nor ground Secondly can you conceive and say that the Church is a Foundation of Truth comparatively to Scripture Is not the Scripture the Foundation of the Church The Scripture in the substance of the Word was before the Church because the Church was built upon it then the Scripture in the substance of it was the Foundation and is now being written And that which is the first Principle of all must be the Foundation of the rest and the further we go from it the lesse security we have because we go more into discourse which is uncertain Now the first Principle is Scripture not the Church because the Church is proved by Scripture and you proved even now or would have done the authority of it by Scripture The Church may give Testimony of the Scripture but the Scripture doth not onely give Testimony of the Church but doth ground it and constitute it and distinguish it and upon it it is built then this is the Foundation The Church is built upon the Scripture not the Scripture upon the Church As the Law hath it self to Justice so hath the Scripture it self to Faith Now the Law is the Foundation of Justice not the Judge so is the Scripture the Foundation of Faith not the Church which you say is the Judge For as the Judge is built upon the Law so is the Church upon Scripture And as the Judge is to go by the Law in his proceeding and sentence otherwise he erres so is the Church to go by the Law of Scripture otherwise it doth erre And as the Law is not to be proved it being the first Principle in Justice so is not the Scripture to be proved for it is the first principle in Faith But as the sentence of the Judge may be examined by Law so may the determinations of the Church be examined by Scripture since the Judge may erre and so may the Church But first prove that it hath not erred and then you will have another work to do to prove it cannot For the Faith of a Christian immediately is resolved into that which cannot deceive him And prove that it cannot erre and therefore is the infallible Judge or if you can prove it the back way it is the infallible judge therefore cannot erre Nextly You make some perstriction of my Criticisme if it may be so called and yet not mine neither but of others also whereby the termes the Pillar and Ground of Truth is referred to the commendation of the Mystery of Godlinesse after the Hebrew fashion to give these Praefaces of respect to so grand and sublime doctrines Here you are pleased to smile as if I had forgotten that this Epistle was written in Greek not in Hebrew and also you say no Hebrew form in the world can make that sense he intends Sir Will you please to give me leave to be even with you in a smile but no I have no minde to rejoyce in any mans imperfections Soberly I reply that I do well remember in what Language it was written and therefore I make it to be an Ebraisme in our use of the word which speaks a following of the Hebrew form in some other Language And he that doth not understand that there is many of these Ebraismes in the Greek of the New Testament doth not understand so much as I would desire And therefore that which you say that no Hebrew form can make my sense is not to be answered And to follow you although the Apostle had not spoken yet of Godlilinesse or the mystery of it might he not put this form of commendation in the front of the Doctrine of Godlinesse as as also in the first Epistle to Timothy 1 Tim. 1.15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ c. Neither have you any cause to object the reading of the words in our English since the distinction of Verses is not Canonical nor yet our English so accounted by us notwithstanding we have as much reason for it to make it as good as your Latin But your Adversary sayes you say that this Title of being the Pillar and ground of Truth agrees in the first place to Scripture Yes and so I do still and have shewed it so but you say it belongeth equally to any thing that is the true Word of God and therefore agreeth to the Scriptures because God speaketh in it and by it Right hold you there Rest your self here Set up your staffe here for you can go no further unlesse you will go up to Heaven and the Church Triumphant But God also speaketh by his Church and in his Church yes unto Authority not Infallibility and therefore that which followes remaines to be proved by you that he doth give as much Infallible assistance to the Church in a Council where is the Pope have you a minde to the opinion of the French Catholiques as he gave to him who did deliver his Word in Scripture It is utterly denyed And you may see plainly hereby how the Roman Tyranny over your Conscience as they would perswade you draws you necessarily into this perill of Blasphemy for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as Infallibly by his Church as in his Word And this some Pontificians do lean towards And then those by you should be called Enthusiasts not who oppose a private Revelation to Scripture but to the Church if God speaks as infallibly by his Church then speak no more against Enthusiasmes or if you do we shall tell you the story that one was accused to Alexander for being a Pirate so then said he that was accused to Alexander I am a Pirate with one Fly-boat and you are not because you have a Navy So the private men are by you accounted Enthusiasts because they have but their own singularities for their bottom but the Church of Rome is not to be charged therewith because they have so many with them And yet it may be if Infallibility were to be determined by Votes whether it did belong to the Words of God onely or also to the Word of the Church you would go neer to lose it for all Churches hold the Scripture Infallible and you too but no Church but the Roman holds the Church to be Infallible and then also you must assume that you are the Church otherwise you would not hold it Infallible You say again it is objected that in these words rather the office of the Church is set forth then her Authority To which you say your answer is clear that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out then by saying that she is the Pillar and Ground of Truth c. But the question is whether these words
for your use Take it by it selfe and it will come to this that a clear place in the Gospel would perswade him to lessen his opinion of the authority of the Catholicks then he would hold clear Scripture above or against the authority of the Church then their authority is not in his judgement Infallible or else Infallible authority of the Church may be opposite to Infallible authority of the Scripture and one in his opinion of them the Scripture is more Infallible then the other the Church which is incongruous for in Infallibility there is no degree no more then in Truth And if you say that the Scripture yet may be more Infallible to him this spoyls all your cause for you say you go to Faith by the Church because that way is more plain c manifestâ— Therefore you hasten me from this passage to shew me what will follow But what do you think will follow I pray note it well their authority being weakned and shewed once fallible now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel And why so because upon the authority of these Catholicks I had believed the Gospel So you But do you see how you interpose your glosse in your Parenthesis thus their authority being once weakned and shewed once fallible Do you imagine that we can neglect or overlook this your glossall inference or opposition and shewed once fallible as if there were no authority but that which is Infallible and there were no weakning of authority but to make it fallible Authority may stand with Fallibility for we grant Authority to the Church distinguishing it from Infallibility And if you had done so you had saved many a wound which your Church hath got by that unfortunate word Infallibility as one of your own men happily confessed Neither therefore doth it follow that the authority of the Catholicks being weakned and shewed once fallible he could not at all believe the Gospel because by the authority of the Catholicks he had believed the Gospel but he could not then believe the Gospel by that inductive and motive of the authority of the Church for the first Christians believed the Apostles severally without the authority of the Church Yea if upon that consideration he could not have believed the Gospel their authority by whom he did believe it being weakned yet doth it not from hence flow necessarily that when he did believe the Gospel he did believe it upon an Infallible authority because although he could not believe the Gospel without it yet might he account it as towards belief but a condition not a cause of his Faith And this you must have or else you do not contradict Whatsoever is necessary to an effect is not the cause of it although whatsoever is a cause thereof is necessary to it Therefore that is not so which again you say that the ground of his beleef in the Gospel was their infallible authoritie as not only these but also the next words shew manifestly When will you by your proof put the infallible proposal of the Church out of question when shall we have any more then supposals of it Let us see your next words Wherefore if in the Gospel there be nothing found that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus then I will beleeve the Catholicks rather then you but if you shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle then neither will I beleeve the Catholicks nor thee Why so I will not beleeve the Catholicks because they whose Doctrine I thought infallible have lyed to me concerning the Manichaeaus But I will not beleeve thee even when thou citest clear Scripture for of this case he speaketh and why so because thou dost cite me that Scripture to which Scripture I had now beleeved upon their authority who have lyed to me So you And what now from hence can you gather more then from the former passage of the same nature unlesse you did make good another Parenthetical supposition whose Doctrine I thought infallible This is not in Saint Austin but comes from your own private Spirit And therefore if you will not be ruled by our Spirit because of the former exception to the contrary surely we have no cause to be overperswaded by your judgement without any reason for it Secondly May you not from hence take notice that what I said of Saint â—ustin that in the Testimony here he might speak as in some heat of Dispute For can we think that Saint Austin had such a soul as to say soberly and categorically that he would not beleeve clear Scripture which was cited by any one because Catholicks had told him otherwise Did Saint Austin in your conceit differ in judgement from your Aquinas or did your Aquinas differ from Saint Austin Consider then what your Aquinas saith in his Summes the first Part the first question and the eight Art Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis facta qui Canonicos libros scripserunt for our Faith doth rely upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books but not upon the revelation if any other was made to other Doctours Nay he confirms it by Saint Austin out of his 19. Epist a little after the beginning Solis enim Scripturarum libris c. For I have learned to give this honour onely to the Books of Scripture which are called Canonical as to believe most firmly that none of the Authours thereof did erre in writing any thing but others I so read that whatsoever holynesse or learning they are excellent in I do not think true therefore because they thought so or wrot so Compare then this passage with the other or the other with this and then judge whether either he did not differ from himself in his Principles or did not speak the former as a disputant Thirdly Let me note whereas you do rightly translate Saint Austin as speaking of his beleef by the Catholicks in the tense more then past you give your self occasion to think that he meant the main passage non crederem not of himself then but as before a Manichee And your argument which you produce a little after against this last answer because he speaks here of beleeuing the Acts of the Apostles and beleeving it by a necessary consequence because he hath already beleeved the other Canonical books upon the same authority of the Church doth not overthrow my answer because you say your self that this book of the Acts he did beleeve by consequence by the authority of the Church he was at first moved to beleeve the other books and therefore by consequence he did beleeve the book of the Acts because the Catholick authority did in like manner commend both Scriptures The speaking here in the present doth not derogate from my answer because the beleeving by consequence supposeth an act of beleeving antecedent Also Fourthly note that here he said the
Gods wise Dispensations to his Church then when there was no Word written he would provide that that whereby the Church should be ruled should be extraordinarily conveyed and preserved but now when there is a Word written which is a most sufficient ground of Faith as you confesse there is no such cause of any word beside it If the Scripture be a Rule of faith as you do liberally grant then this is now a rule not onely inclusively but exclusively for otherwise it is not as large as that which is to be ruled and then they will not agree in the nature of Relatives and so it will not be a Rule of faith and manners For indeed the propertie of a Rule doth not only exclude lesse but also more It speaks against adding to it as a Rule of faith and manners necessarie in themselves as well as against the negative of not ordering them by it But then again your former reasoning is inconcludent because God revealed himself to his Church severally before he revealed himself by his Church And therefore this was not the way universally holding namely by the Church even before the Scripture was written And therefore much lesse doth it now bind when the Word of God is written Shew the like inspirations to the Church as the Prophets had by some infallible way and then we shall say that thus saith the Lord absolutely undisputedly without possibilitie of contradiction by the mouth of the Church in whatsoever it pleaseth to assert for the truth of God to be believed equally to Scripture and then a Council is to be believed without Scripture as the Nicene you mean was not believed or to be believed without for it did determine by it and by that Text I named I and my Father are one which Saint Athanasius doth apply to that question foure times in that Epistle you named And if you can prove that Saint Peters successours as you imagine had that transient gift of immediate Revelation as Saint Peter had then ye might say Peter spake by the mouth of Leo as infallibly as God spake by his Then the Arrians had as good a plea for their opinion as Athanasius had for they urged the Council of Ariminum and more Councils as Athanasius mentions in the same Epistle if what is said by the Church must be true then Athanasius must have changed his Opinion Or if you will have alwayes the Pope to be put into the authoritie of the Church for an infallible definition binding the consciences of all Christians to believe it as Gospel then must we believe that what he defines is Infallibly true What because he cannot erre No more then those fourtie Popes which Bellarmin speaks of in his fourth Book De Rom. Pontif. from the 8. chapter to the 15. who have been as he said accused of errour and some whereof none can say that all the distinctions and provisions which have been devised for this purpose can possibly justifie Pope Zephyrine a Montanist then he erred if not a Montanist then Tertullian is not to be believed Liberius as before an Arrian so Athanasius so Jerome so Damasus of him and Damasus could not erre as you hold yet an Arrian is surely in errour is he not Honorius was erroneous too and he spoken of in a former paper he a Monothelite as Melchior Canus saith some Catholicks hold and he proves it by Synods the sixth the seventh the eighth and he proves it by Epistles of Popes if all there be deceived how shall we believe authoritie of man As for Gregory the Third Bellarmin in the 12. chapter of that book doth openly say Vel certe Pontificem ex ignorantia lapsum esse quod posse Pontificibus accidere non negamus So he Then do you reconcile errour by ignorance with Infallibility How is he like to be Infallible in all his definitions when he was ignorant in the Gospel and therefore gave a Dispensation to a man to take another wife if the former had a disease that made her not able for the conjugal debt And Alphonsus de Castro in his 1. book 4. chapter hath this passage Omnis enim Homo errare potest in fide etiam si Papa sit Nam de Liberio à Papa constat fuisse Arrianum Et Anasterium Papam fuvisse Nestorianis qui Historias legerit non dubitat and a little after Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent qui fit ut sacras Literas interpretari possent And how then shall we by your Head of the Church or any other severally or together know the undoubted sense of Scripture infallibly But many necessary places of Scripture do not as you imagin need a Judge or not infallible All things also necessary to be believed are set down in Scripture and the contrary you have not shewed and therefore is there no need of an infallible Judge for the former or tradition for the latter as I have shewed Neverthelesse you proceed thus The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her authoritie to be our ordinary cause of Faith So you Answer As you suppose much for your advantage without colour of reason so you confound much without distinction First the term Revelation hath two respects one to the Agent and so it refers to the act and manner thereof another to the matter of that which is revealed that is the object The Revelation of God taking it passively for the object the matter which is revealed comes to us by the Church because the Word written ordinarily comes to us by the Church But taking Revelation of God actively with respect to the manner to bear your sense that God doth reveal himself infallibly by the Church either in the case of Canonical books or of doubts about the sense of Scripture so it doth not come by the Church and therefore is it not the ordinary cause of Faith which must rely upon infallible veritie as Aquinas speaks in his first part first question eight answer and therefore as before doth rely upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets which wrote the Canonical books and not then upon the Church who was bound to receive these Books and to communicate them So that the Church is concluded to be as an instrument only or a motive of this faith an instrument by its office and a motive by its authority And as for declaring undoubtedly the sense of Scripture So is there not any necessity of a Judge infallible which you would have the Church to be Secondly you suppose that which is not to be supposed that by my words since in those cases the revelation of God comes to us by the Church I must grant her authority to be the ordinary cause of faith and you say also that by my words in this place I must grant so Surely you here do commit
hath sufficiently provided for the salvation of man in regard of means of Knowledge without an infallible Judge on Earth because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture And in another place you say what is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary Of this your opinion no proof was given by you untill you come unto this present place Here then I will begin to discusse this Question And first I will take leave to state this Question a little more fully and distinctly 2. Your Assertion then is That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture In this Assertion there be 2 things which need a full and distinct declaration The first is to declare these words Necessary to salvation The second to declare those other words Plainly set down in Scripture And first concerning those words Necessary to salvation they must of necessity be understood so that all things are plainly set down in Scripture which are necessary First to the Universal Church as it is a communitie Secondly all things which are necessary to all States and Degrees that must needs be in this community Thirdly all things necessary to every single person bound to be of this community As for the first the Church being intended to be a community diffus'd through the whole World and intended for a Perpetuity must by infallible authority be plainly told in what manner she is in all times and places to be provided of lawful Pastors and that with perpetual Succession and what power these Pastors have either in respect of one another or in respect to their particular flocks and what Lawes they may make either single in regard of their flocks or assembled in regard of the whole community and how many to this effect must be assembled who must call their assembly who perside in it when it is to be accounted lawful when an unlawful assembly Whether the Precepts of this assembly oblige under pain of damnation to the keeping for Example of any Feast as Christmasse Ascension or any Fast as the Fast of Lent of Christmasse Eve and to this community it is also necessary to know what publick service may and ought to be imposed upon all and when all are bound to be present at it What Sacraments are to be administred by whom when the people are bound to use them and how often and in what manner and form they must be Administred All these things are necessary to the Chuch as a community and yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians all undecidable by Scripture Some of you contend according to Scripture that there must be Bishops with such and such Power and Authority and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons and without these no true Sacraments things so necessary to the salvation of all men Others answer in the words of your own doctrine 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 authoritie That Priests should be Ordained with such and such a Form that none but Priests should have Power to blesse the Bread administer the Sacraments That this Bread must be Wheat-bread or Barley or Oaten or Pease-bread Therefore all these things are signified not to be necessary The same Argument might be made of other such like Controversies which certainly be no lesse necessary then the former to be decided Though according to their Doctrine none of them should be necessary Or if necessary they should be decidable by plain Scripture and then your Doctours could not jarre about them as they doe Some of you will have no words at all necessary to the Administration of Baptisme some will have such kinde of words and others words very different from them in substance Secondly to speak now of such things as are of strict necessity to certain men of certain states and degrees in the Church Your Bishops must know how to ordain Priests and with what form of words or actions Where shall they find this plainly set down in Scripture They must also know whether they can lawfully permit women to baptize at all or baptize in necessitie onely and not out of it Whether they may permit women or lay-men to blesse the bread and distribute the Sacrament seeing that Christ said Do this all not plainly expressing how far these his words extended themselves Priests must know what kind of Ordination is necessary for their Function what commssion is necessary for their lawful Missions and whether it can be granted by Lay-men or no as also their power to make and administer Sacraments and yet none of these are plainly set down in Scripture and endlesse controversies there be about them 4. Thirdly divers of the former things not set down plainly in Scripture are necessary to be known by all men all being obliged to serve God in a true Church having a lawful succession of true Pastors truly ordain'd themselves and truly ordaining their Priests who must be known to Administer true Sacraments in their true matter and form preaching also the Word of God by lawful Mission It is necessary to the salvation of every man to believe and doe somethings and not to do some other things not plainly set down in Scripture Every one is to believe some things distinctly Now which these things be or how many Scriptures expresse not Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday Every one is bound not to have two wives at one time not also to marry within such and such a degree of consanguinity Where be all these things plainly set down in Scripture Of divers other things we shall yet say more Yet even hence appeareth how many endlesse difficulties these words of yours Necessarie to salvation bring with them 5. Other endlesse difficulties be superadded by those other words Plainly set down in Scripture First to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sence of it I must first know such a book to be the true and undoubted Word of God which as I shall shew Numb 20. cannot be known by Scripture at least by those who can truly swear that they are no more able by the reading of the book of Numbers for example to discover in it any Divine Light shewing it to be true Scripture more then they discover in the books of Judith or Toby shewing them to be true Scripture Secondly they must infallibly shew that this very Verse in which I find this point is not thrust in among other true parts of Scripture or some word changing the sense either thrust in or left out in this Verse and this they must know infallibly Thirdly after all this they must yet further know and that infallibly
as they most prudently believed what the Prophets taught them by word of mouth to be infallibly true because spoken by those whom God gave Commission to say what they said so they most prudently believed what the same men did deliver to them by their writings as Gods Word because written by those whom God gave Commission unto to write what they writ The credit and belief given as well to their writings as to their words unwritten was at last found prudently accepted upon the Motives upon which they accepted their Commissions as given by God for their infallible instruction All were moved prudently to accept of this their Commission because God did own it for his by several Miracles or other most apparent proofs testifying to the people the infallible Commission which those Prophets and Scripture writers had to teach them by words or writing or both Their wits then were induced to accept of this their Commission as truly given by God moved thereunto by such prudent Motives that it had been a high act of imprudence which in point of salvation is damnable to have disbelieved them for example they did either see such apparent Miracles or such notorious force of Doctrine working visibly so strange changes of manners and in so many before so vitious to a life very Vertuous and sometimes vertuous in a stupidious degree The writers of the New Testament had these divine attentions yet more abundantly though the others cannot be denied sufficient whence as from their only words not yet written many thousands received their faith because they first prudently were induced by these Motives to acknowledge them to have had a true Commission from God to say to us in his Name all that they said and then because they acknowledged this Commission to be from God they believed infallibly all what they said because they said it with Commission from God to say it So by their words now written by them in the Scriptures which they delivered unto them many thousands received their Faith because first prudently they were induced by these Motives to acknowledge these writers to have had a true Commission from God to write what they did write in his Name and then because they acknowledged this Commission to have been from God they did believe infallibly all that they did write because they did write it with Commission from God Thus you see upon what assurance those who first received the Scriptures did receive them for Gods VVord The Apostles gave their writings to the prime Prelates and Pastors of the Church assuring them in Gods Name that these writings were Gods VVord These Pastors and Prelates preached to the people that they should admit of these writings as Gods true VVord VVhat they preached was believed with an infallible assent upon the authoritie of the prime Pastours of the Church They were prudently induced to give an infallible assent to their authority by these strong Motives by which they had demonstrated themselves to have Commission from God to teach his Doctrine both by word and writing Thus was the first Age assured of Gods Word by the Oral Tradition of the first Pastors of the Church assuring them also that the Spirit of truth would abide with the Church teaching her all truth and that they were to hear the Church under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens and that she should be unto them as the piller and ground of truth for as they did write so doubtless they did teach these things These first Christians then received this doctrine with an assent as infallible as they received the Scriptures And so all then believed and all taught their Successors to believe the Church to have such infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost that in all doubts arising about faith they were to submit unto her as to one having Commission from God to declare all such matters The second Age by so universal so full so manifest a tradition was most prudently induced to acknowledge the church to have such a Commission from God and so they believe the Church for this divine authority given her Now there is nothing which can make any thing more prudently credible then universal tradition A miracle to confirm that there is such a City as London though in it self it were a surer motive would not work so undoubted a beliefe in the minds of those who never did see London as universal tradition worketh And yet this tradition is but one of the motives which induceth us to acknowledge the Church to have received Commission to declare with infallible authority the Verities received from the Apostles and consequently her declarations to be admitted with infallible assent for her authority But I must needs note that this motive of tradition alone did serve to make all for the first 2000 yeares and more give an infallible assent to their Church see Ch. 4. Number 11. yet here I intreat you to mark how they resolved their faith then Why did they believe then that the Soul was immortal Because God said so by his Church having Commission to teach us all we are to believe Why believed they that this Church had Commission to teach them as Authorized with due infallibilitie Because the same Church told them so Why did they believe this Because they would do so And they would do so because it had been meere folly not to accept of this Churches Commission to teach them infallibly all truths which Commission they knew by tradition to have been ever accepted as divine by all good people so we c. I will adde one Motive more 33. Miracles are called a Testimony greater then Iohn the Baptist Christ himself said If you will not believe me believe my Works By this great testimony of Miracles God hath often owned the doctrine of the Romane Church even as it is in this our dayes For he knoweth but litle of the world who doth not know the vast extent of those Provinces and Kingdomes which in this last Age the Preachers of the Roman Faith have added to their Faith by this Testimony of God by Signes and Wonders and divers Miracles Hebrewes 2.4 And here most Visibly Our Lord ever working withall and confirming their words by Signes and Miracles It appeareth also by the History of Bede and the plain confession of your learned Magdeburgians that the faith brought into our England by St. Austin was the same faith which you abolished by your Reformation as you call it And yet again it appeareth by Bede and St. Gregory his Epistles that wonderful were the miracles which St. Austin wrought in Confirmation of the faith preached in so much that St. Gregory thought it necessary to admonish him of conteining himself in humility lest the working of so many miracles should puff him up These Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles Therefore the doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles And it may for this motive
which collectively taken maketh your other ground of Christian belief to stand upon therefore Saint Pauls words were spoken of the Church as of such a pillar of truth and such a ground of truth as might then be securely relied upon in all matters of faith and confessedly as then the true believers had not the Scriptures sufficiently compleated to be their adaequate Rule of Faith Now after the writings of these Scripture recommending the Church as the pillar and ground of Truth this ground was so far from growing weaker that the confirmation of Scripture added new force to it I have now shewed you the Text in which without any subordination to Scripture as then not written the Church was by Saint Paul called the pillar and ground of Truth Now shew me your Text in which there must be a subordination and such a subordination as may make the Church not to be truly such a pillar and such a ground of Truth as all men may not now rely on it any longer as they did before all Scripture was written I call for your Text not for your reason against which other Reasons will soon be found And as for that saying of Saint Irenaus the Scripture is the pillar and ground of Truth it hath not upon his saying greater authority then the terming of the Church the pillar and ground of truth hath upon the authority of St. Paul My proofe as grounded on S. Paul is stronger then yours as grounded on St. Irenaeus yet I make not St. Irenaeus contrary to St. Paul what he saith of the Scripture I yeild for true yeild me what St. Paul saith that I may ground my faith upon the Church This I cannot do unless God speaketh by his Church If God speaketh by his Church I pray believe what he speaketh He telleth me by his Church that I am to admitt of the Scriptures as his undoubted word upon this his telling me so I ground that faith by which I believe the Scriptures so that I believe the Scriptures for the Church which faith of mine is as surely grounded as was the faith of the true believers who at that very time in which St. Paul did write these words did ground their faith in all points upon the Church as you cannot deny And thus in repect of us the Church is first believed independently of Scripture to which we are most prudently moved by such motives as I have specified and the Scripture in order to us cometh to be acknowledged as Gods word upon the authority of the Church there being no other assured stay speaking of the whole and undoubted Canon to know the true Scripture from false The Scripture is not the first Principle but upon supposition that every one among christians admit of it for Gods Word and so we argue out of it against one another But speaking of him who is to begin to be a christian as where all once began he cannot admit of Scripture as men admit of the first Principles of Sciences which of themselves appear so clearly true that all you can bring to prove their truth will appear lesse true then those Principles appear by themselves The Scripture is not the first Principle in this sense appearing evidently by its own light to be Gods Word as I have shewed at large And this answereth all you say until you come to make good your new interpretation of St. Pauls words an interpretation unheard of to all antiquity and to all men until this age Necessity now forced men to their shifts to put off Scripture when it made against them These words must now be necessarily referred to that which is said in the verse following concerning the mystery of the Incarnation and so though St. Paul did write this Epistle in Greek he must needs be said to have used here an Ebraisme And why must he needs be said to have done so here in this particular place because somtimes such Ebraisms be used in the new Testament Whether this reason wil justifie so new an interpretation of words even for a thousand and five hundered yeares applied to the Church never applied to the Mistery of the Incarnation shall be determined even by the Principles of one of your greatest Divines now living I mean Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Discourse of the Liberty of prophecying Sect. 4. An other great pretence for justifying new interpretations is the conference of places which you would use here by conferring this place to some few places in which such Ebraismes be used in Greek A thing of such indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sence alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine writers there is nothing which may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may amuse the most intelligent observours This he proveth by several examples and then he truly saith This is a fallacy a Posse ad esse It is possible a thing sometimes may be so therefore undoubtedly here it is so There be such Ebraismes some where therefore they must needs be here where for a thousand and five hundred yeares no man observed any such thing Most truly saith the same Doctor This is the great way of answering all the Arguments which can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend Sir you who make the Scripture judge of all Controversies should not of all men justifie such liberty of new interpretation as this your proceeding would bring in Or if you doe you will soon see and may already see it that your judge will be made to speak what each party pleaseth And thus will be unable to decide any thing But to proceed The Church truly being before the Canon was written the pillar and ground of truth in it self without any subordinatiō so that the believers looked no further then that God taught them such and such things by the Church I have from the text all I desire to prove that Gods assistance promised to the Church should reach as farre as infallibility Whether this infallibility be equal to that of the Apostles or no maketh not to the purpose so long as it is granted that our faith relying upon her authority doth rely as securely as that which relies upon the Pillar and ground of truth Here you come in with a parenthesis noting me for a French Catholique for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a council Sir you are no Schollar if you know not that all Roman Catholiques allow infallibility to the Pope defining with a council 24 But because I say also that God speaketh by his Church proposing infallibly his truth by her mouth you tell me that I hence may plainly see how the Roman tyranny drawes me necessarily into peril of blasphemy A deepe charge needing a strong proof And yet all your proof is because now there is no need of Scripture since God speakes as infallibly by his Church as
infallibilitie were guiltie of heresie and bad manners and I instanced in Liberius subscribing against Athanasius So that the way your Church hath doth not free you from these crimes and therefore you do unreasonably urge against your Adversarie inconveniences of his principles which are common to yours And yet you will now complain of me because I am even with you The debate betwixt us upon this point lies thus you faulted our permission of the use of Scripture to the people as the cause or the cause without which heresie and bad manners do not arise I answered in defence of Scripture this not the cause nor the causa sine quae non of them since heresie and bad manners have been in those of your Church in whom your infalibility is placed and therefore have you no cause to take it so ill that I answered you so home All the causality you can pretend of heresie and bad manners by a free use of the Scriptures is through mis-interpretation of them is it not yea is it so then how come those who are infalible to be hereticks and bad You had best take away Scripture from all that so there may be no heresie Well it seems you now begin to bethink your self that heresie and bad life are not the properties of a free use of Scripture as we understand them quarto modo but as consequents or inseparable accidents which are in a larger sense as properties namely as omni sed non soli so I construe your last words if I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresie and bad life c. you must then allow us to tell you that you are somewhat disposed to go hence and to deduct and refute the overboiling expressions of the danger of Scripture as to the people at least as if all the heresies and bad life were to be grounded or charged upon the common liberty of reading Scripture And let me come up a little more closely to you I demand of you Whether you will or dare to say that all those who have had the free use of Scripture have interpreted it in difficult places as they judged fit and therefore were of bad life if not then is it not proprium omni And so for heresie you cannot say that every one who hath freely used Scripture hath interpreted or mis-interpreted it unto heresie for how then could he of your Church say si fides in doctos solos caderet nihil esset occuperius Deo Or did they believe without the use of Scripture by an implicit faith in the Church Did they But this implicit faith implies a contradiction in adjecto for faith supposeth knowledge of what we believe in the object though not in the reason but implicit is divided against knowledge and if you say that it knows the Church which it doth believe it will come to this that all the faith of the people shall be shrunk into one Article of the Church and no matter whether they explicitly believe God or Christ or any thing else will this prove good Divinity Or will good Divinity prove this And besides it is not implicit faith which believes the Church but explicit for they must actually believe the Roman Church to be it unto which salvation is obliged Then reading of the Scriptures is not a cause to all though not all the cause of heresie for some have got salvation by it and therefore were no hereticks unless you will say they might have salvation and be hereticks too If you will say it then why would you perswade our people that there is no salvation for us hereticks Then subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation for although all Christians but you according to your Principles are hereticks yet they may be saved because hereticks may be saved However we may have faith by reading of Scripture and if faith then we are not hereticks by Knots argumentation because he would have heresie destroy all faith But you have reason to say that other ways of heresie there may be besides being conversant in Scripture for you know that hereticks have pleaded Antiquity therefore by your Logick you should not plead it for use and settlement of faith Whereas you say Again had not David who was a Murtherer and an Adulterer had not Solomon who was an Idolater the infalible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing severall parts of the holy Scripture Sir I thank you for helping your weak Adversary for this makes for me and proves for me what I said on behalf of Scripture that heresie and badnesse were accidentall at most to the use of Scripture because those whom you account infallible were guilty thereof You prove now by other examples the possibility thereof The sense of the discourse as to badnesse of life is this If bad manners be competible to those who are accounted infallible then the mis-interpretation of Scripture by the ignorance of the people is not the cause of bad maners but verum prius and now you not denying it to be true of your Pope would confirm it by certain examples in Scripture But I hope you meane to reflect this towards the proof of infalibility to be consistent with a lewd life And therefore I answer to you that I deny not the distinction of infalibility in rebus fidei and not in point of action I deny not the distinction in the notion of it but I deny it in the application of it to the Pope I do acknowledge him in one part of it falible in the latter but you must prove him infalible in the former as David and Solomon was and we have done We are agreed in the Thesis that there may be infalibility of faith where there is lewdness of life but we differ in the Hypothesis as you intend it not that the Pope may not be nought in life but that he is not infalible in defining points of faith or manners But you would avoid the danger of my former answer therefore you say But to prevent this and all that elsewhere you can say against the Pope I in my twenty first number desired you and all to take notice of that which you here quite forget I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige us no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre How then doth the belief or faith of a Church I speake not of private mens private opinions invest infalibility in a person hereticall or bad So then let my answer be put into this forme Liberius the Pope was guilty of heresie and bad manners Liberius was according to you infalible therefore the Subject of infalibility may be an heretick and guiltie of bad manners and consequently heresie and bad life are not to be imputed to the mis-interpretation of Scripture Before you graunted me the Conclusion that heresie and bad life may come in otherwise
conscience tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum hold that which is certain leave that which is uncertain it is certain that the Scripture is infalible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is infalible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the rule and ground and cause of faith So I in my last But you leave out all notice of my disputing this with you in point of wisdome and cut off your own confession and would have me to make this a Demonstration absolutely in point of truth You do wisely to shuffle it off since you cannot well bear the dint of it in the way of discourse ad hominem And yet also is it necessarily certain that if our grounds be more certain then your's are not because they are contradictorie But you making it to be in my account an absolute Demonstration answer first the Scripture connot be proved to be the word of God without the Church be infalible as I shall shew ch 8. But this was not now the particular question I disputed upon your own concession And therefore this is nothing to my Argument Apply your answers to my proceeding with you upon your account of prudence And then secondly Though it be not a Demonstration that the Scripture is infalible the Church not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture yet it concludes upon advantage for though the Church were infalible in the testimony of the Scripture to be the word of God yet the Scripture were to be the immediate ground of all necessary points Thirdly Neither doth it contradict my assertions that the Church is not the rule and cause of faith though it were infalible in this Testimony for if it were infalible in this yet would it not follow it should be infalible in all as I have told you and you have not answered me yet And then Fourthly The Scripture may appeare to be the word of God though the Church be not infalible as will be shewed in answer to you And therefore all you say upon this hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie Article of our faith that all the Scripture is the word of God and therefore upon her Authority I believe the Scripture to be most infalible yet because I ground this belief upon her Authoritie her Authoritie is yet the last ground of faith I say all this hath no sound discourse and will come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even into nothing upon the two last answers first because if from hence I believe the Scriptures to be the word of God yet am I not therefore ex vi consequentiae bound to hold the Church the last ground of faith in all things for it plainly concludes a dicto secundum quid We can hold that the Generall Councell may be infalible in points necessary though not in all points whatsoever although you must hold infalibilitie in all or none because you say all is delivered by the Church upon her Authority equally without respect to the matter And then secondly upon the last answer which was the fourth we shall cashiere all that is said here for that it will appear that the Scripture is the word of God without the Churches Authoritie for the corroboration of the Title And so there needs not the infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weighty Article of faith that all the Scripture is the word of God â—um 7. And whereas in your next number you promise such souls as have forsaken an infalible Church an happy eternity upon this ground that those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture I pray God their Soules come not to be required at your hands Ans I am beholding to my Adversary for his good wishes that I may not answer for other mens souls But if he takes here forsaken formally and an infalible Church really so not accounted only to be so by him I deny it that we have so forsaken such a Church for neither is it infalible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides they have rather forsaken us and the whole Church in pretending infalibilitie to themselves and Domination over all that will be true Christians No particular Church can be bound to another more than as it doth comply with the Catholick Church now then if any do leave the Catholick as the Roman hath done we cannot join with them wherein they leave the Catholick either in point of faith or discipline If we are to give respect to a particular Church as an actuall part of the whole then where it separates we must follow the whole A turpis est omnis pars universo suo non congruens And yet they first made the actuall Schism when the Popes Bull prohibited communion with us So then take forsaken rightly and an infalible Church really we deny the charge Take them otherwise we denie the consequence of danger But my Adversarie would prove our ground to be groundless first because no Soul can have infalible assurance of the Scriptures being the true word of God if the Church be not infalible c. Whereof you promise more Num. 20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Ans This we have had so often without proof that it is to no purpose to say any thing to words for Arguments Scaurus negat as Alphonsus de Castro opposeth his adversary Yea also you refer me here for proof in the third ch Your conclusion is here your proof there so far is your conclusion from proof Premisses were wont to be before the Conclusion but your opinion is already shewed vaine as touching the ground of your certainty and your vanity of my opinion I shall refute when you shew it And so you serve me for the second respect wherein you say my ground is groundlesse for you say it is manifestly false that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture as you shew ch 3. Your conclusion here that it is manifestly salse c. I believe will be too large for your Arguments as it is now too soon We follow your order as having nothing to do untill you begin In your eighth Par. You say I find nothing in the next Par. which I have not here answered Onely you still force me to say again I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre what proceedeth from this Authority we professe to proceed from the Authority of the Church When the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent You say you find nothing in it which here you have not answered And what can I finde here but that you say Only you force me to say again Here is some ingenuitie that you seem not to love to swell your papers with repetitions Therefore prove it once say it no more Quid
the letter doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from Captivitie Ans And I see no reason to the contrary if we consider several expressions in that place which carry that scope and also if we consider that ordinarily at least when any thing is prophecied mystically of the Church Christian in the old Instrument it is yet true in the letter of the Jews And also thirdly If we will take notice of the Septuagint who render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that are dispersed shall walke amongst them and not erre And if you take this version to be the Septuagints you may know they knew the text as well as the Latine Church Therefore this you would suppose and argue upon it If he did direct the Jewish Church by a way so direct that fools could not erre by it there can be no good reason why he should be lesse carefull to direct the ignorant of the Church of Christ Ans My Adversary did not consider that if it be understood of the Jewish Nation it is not presently to be understood of the Jewish Church under that formality It may be intended of them in the civill sense and not in their Ecclesiasticall respect and then we cannot argue from a temporall promise made to the Jew to a Spirituall promise made to the Christian though men are bold to make such accommodations For then might we of our own power make a mystical sense of Scripture wherein one thing should by Divine intention signifie another thing this we cannot do for then mysticall Divinitie should be Argumentative which is denied even by the Pontificians Yet he goes on Yet I thinke it is sure that this is not the true Interpretation For when did the blinde see the deaf hear when did then God come himself and save us Ans It may be understood in the letter and yet some expressions be hyperbolical Yea those expressions may be understood in the letter without any hyperbolicalnesse as that those who never thought to see or heare of such a Redemption actual should see and heare of it should not onely heare of it but see it Secondly When do we heare of vengance and recompence spoken of ver 4. And drie ground and pools and habitation of Dragons and a place for reeds and rushes spoken of ver the 7. to be in the Church Christian in a spirituall sense Put one to the other and which of them hath more moment And to the other question when did then God come himself and save us We answer this makes no Scruple of such an Interpretation of it to the Jew neither because it is said he will come nor because it is said he will save Not the first nor the second for the first is as ordinarie as the terme save is usuall in the old Instrument for the temporall sense Wherefore had Joshua his name from the same root was he to be a spirituall Saviour It is true he was typicall of Christ Jesus but he was typicall by a temporal deliverance yea even the Greek word is sometimes used for a temporall salvation in the new Testament as Mat. 8.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Master save us we perish yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly is rendered Saviour when applied to Christ is sometimes applied to God in the new Testament in a temporall sense as is noted rationally by some Criticks and particulary in that text some give an instance thereof 1 Ep. to Tim. 4.10 Who is the Saviour of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially of those that believe He is the Saviour of all in a temporall sense specially of those who believe And thus Estius upon the text would carrie it for which exposition he names Chrysostom Oecumenius Ambrosianus Anselme And he said positively constat autem ex aliis Scripturae locis c. it is manifest also out of other places of Scripture that the term of salvation is understood of the good things of the temporall life So he upon the place He proceeds And if you will have our Saviour himself to be this way as he said I am the truth and the way this self same Saviour said I who am this way am with you to the consummation of the world to wit directing my Church the right way to Salvation of which direction the Church now hath no lesse need than then Ans He supposeth that which is not granted nor yet doth he go about to prove it that it is to be understood by Divine intention of the Christian Church objective This is not to be allowed unlesse mysticall Divinity were in the nature of it argumentative And my second answer to this text wherein I referred it to the time of Christ in way of supposition if it were at all to be referred to the time of the Christian Church according to Isider Clarius and St. Jerom. he cannot well deny but will argue from it that the Church hath no lesse need of direction now than then Ans This Reply hath no strength of reason in it for the foundation of Christianitie was then to be layd which foundation personall was Christ then it was to be built upon the foundation ministeriall the Apostles also as St. Paul speakes Eph. 2.20 The new Testament was not then written the propagation of the Gospell was not then made Christian Doctrine was not universally received And therefore then was there more need of infalible direction by Christ and his Apostles than now And this really answereth your supposition that such an infalible direction which by our Saviour was promised to the Church by the Apostles should alwaies continue in the Church whereas it is not so necessary by necessitie of meane or end And therefore can we not make a demonstration of it a causa finali because it is not necessary for the end of Salvation Deus nec deficit in necessariis nec abundat in superfluis as he said he is neither wanting in necessaries nor is abundant in superfluities But this passage must be made good by them or all is lost therefore he goes on And as we could not securely have put a limitation to those words of Joel namely concerning the powring out of the spirit if St. Peter had not secured us of the true sense so cannot you limit these words not having the like warrant for it Ans So then first Are those words of Joel limited Yes he confesseth it and it is so plain by St. Peter in the second of the Acts that it cannot be denied Upon this confession we dispute If those words of St. Peter be limited then also the other text Mat. 28. last I am with you to the end of the world is also limited The consequence is it may be demanded It is given thus If the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not now to be expected as then then can we not now pretend infalibilitie as then because this is a speciall gift of the Holy Ghost Therefore have we no
is not this way Suppose God had promised the Kingdome of France a Monarchy Ergo the Kingdome of France say you is no Monarchy The true consequence is the Kingdome of France is this Monarchy Ans I am not displeased with mine own Argument if there can be no more said against it than is here I know no difference betwixt a King and a Monarch sufficient to ground a distinction and in the new Testament the greek word which signifies a King is usually applied to the expressing of Emperors And therefore if God had promised the Kingdom of France a Monarchy he should have promised it it self And so if God had promised the Church to be this way he should have promised it it self I had thought that as the object of the thing in humane speculation is before the act speculative so the object of person had been considered before acts practick otherwise the object of the person and the object of the thing do not differ Thus if the promise of this way to the Church be the promise of the Church its being this way then the terminus rei and the terminus personae is all one Therefore must this way be distinguished from the Church otherwise the Church hath nothing promised And how can this way be predicated of the Church in such a proposition the Church is this way when according to your principles the Church must have its existence by this way before it can be this way And so must have its being before its cause which amounts to a contradiction that it should be and not be for it must be before it is Yea if the Church is to be supposed before it be the way and yet is to have its consistence by this way this is to make that which is to be which also makes that which is not to be because it must not be before it be Yet he goes on The Church is this way which God promised it should be But to whom did he promise it To singulars before they are aggregated in the unity of a Church Then the singulars yet must be a Church before they be a Church because this way was promised you say to the Church If the diffused Church be the object of the promise to whom it is made then again how were the Christians without faith Or how had they faith without a Representative which is the way promised as he supposeth Yet again and it is so by the sure guidance of him who is the way and is with his Church ruling it until the consummation of the world And so Christ is regula regulans and the Church regula regulata So thâ—n at length my Adversary is come to my distinction onely he will not apply it as I did I said the Scripture is regula regulans the Church is regula regulata he saies now that Christ is regula regulans the Church is regula regulata So that in part he is come over to us in that he says the Church is the rule ruled and he or any other could hardly overcome us in the other that Christ should be the rule ruling and not by the Scripture Christ doth not now rule us immediately but by the Spirit and therefore is he said to be the Spirit of Christ neither doth the Spirit rule us immediately but by the word which the Spirit of Christ did inspire the Pen-men of Scripture in to this purpose So it remains that the Scripture is the word of Christ by his Spirit And by this word which was first delivered by his Spirit is Christ the way He is the way of merit by his death He is the way of example by his life He is the way of precept and direction by his word If he divides the word from the Spirit he makes it not the word of God if he divides the Spirit from the word so that the Spirit should direct beside the word he runs into Enthusiasmes The Spirit hath it selfe to the word as the Dictator the Apostles have themselves and the Prophets to the word as the Pen-men The word hath it self to us as the rule which from God through Christ by his Spirit in the Pen-men of Scripture is to direct us unto our Supernaturall end Therefore saith St. Paul let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisedome Colos 3.16 To conclude then this Answer since Christ is now confessed to be the rule ruling he is the rule ruling either by his Church or by his word If by his Church as my Adversary how is this Church to be ruled since this is the rule ruled By his Spirit they will say well but how In a Councell they will say confirmed by the Pope But for the first three hundred yeares their was no Councill nor Pope in their sence for more How then Then by his Spirit causally in the word according to which the Arch-Bishop of Collen resolved to reform his Church for which he was cited before the Emperour and excomunicated afterwards by the Pope in the yeare 1546. But being ruled by him there is not the least danger that it will swerve from the word of God and you may well follow such a Guide with blinde obedience So my Antagonist goes on upon the Church Ans To this passage much may be said First that the former words are wisely put together si non caste tamen caute For there is a reserve of sense in which they are true namely in sensu composito whilst it is ruled by Christ there is not the least danger of swerving from the word of God but it is yet to be proved that it will always be ruled by Christ Make this sure and we have done But if it had always been ruled by Christ it would not have violated his institution of Communion under both kinds Put this then into a forme of discourse that which is ruled by Christ doth not swerve from his word the Church of Rome is ruled by Christ therefore and we limit the major so far as it is ruled by Christ it doth not swerve from the word it is not true that it never swerves unlesse it be true that it is always ruled by Christ but then we deny the Assumption for it is not always ruled by Christ 2. We note here that the rule Christ rules us by is his word for so it is said here being ruled by Christ it will not swerve from his word So then by his own words Christ's adequate rule is his word otherwise we might be ruled by him and yet swerve from his word And also consequently if we follow his word we follow him And those that do not follow his word do not follow him Thirdly we must differ with him upon the point of blinde obedience therefore whereas he saies you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedience we say absolutely blind obedience is not rationall it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any sense and then we say
definition of the Doctors but rather is evidently against it by which he concludes in this his review the definition of the Roman Doctors to be false And yet this is the plainest text for them And therefore let the Popish Collier be convinced by some clearer Argument out of Scripture to believe as the Church believeth or else to the eternall good of misled souls confesse that if you give not private men leave finally to resolve themselves in Scripture the Roman can finde no means upon earth to put an end unto the main controversies the Church not sufficing for this end unlesse we should take the Church as commending us to Scripture for our direction under pain of being accounted not Christians For how are we bound upon pain of Damnation to believe that Jesus is the Christ without that which is written in Scripture But it will be said that the Popish Collier should not have leave given him to examine the Scripture's sense no more than the Arrian Cobler should have leave to examine the Councils definition but both should absolutely rest in the definition of a Council To this we answer severall things First it is a mighty prejudice to the Roman cause that they account blind obedience to the Church a duty This darke lantern that none should see them but their own men breeds great suspition The Roman cannot perswade the Arrian to rest in a Council and therefore a Council will not make an end with all of all controversies Thirdly if the Arrian were to rest in a Council he would say the Council of Ariminum were as considerable to him as the Council of Nice to the Homorsiasts Fourthly General Councils for the purest times of the Church were not celebrated and therefore this is not the universall way of satisfaction and absolute determinative of faith Fifthly we have no prejudice against the four General Councils we embrace them and they make no prejudice against us therefore if we hold as they hold points of faith we are as saveable as they Sixthly the plainest Council they have for them is the Council of Trent and yet the Popish Collier cannot acquiesce in that because although they say it was yet he may doubt whether it was a free Generall Council And I hope since my Adversary saies we must take infallibility from the Generall Council we may have leave to examine whether that was a free Generall Council And here we must contradistinguish the Church unto the Council and we must not believe the Council for the Church for then the infallibilitie would lie in the Church not in the Council Well and must we take the Councill to be right and good from it self suppose we were to receive undisputedly the Decrees of faith in a Generall Council yet we must be assured first that this was a Generall free Council then it is left us to examine the Council though not the definitions for if the Scripture cannot prove it self as they suppose then the Councill cannot and therefore the Popish Collier may examine the Council And how shall he content himself about the Councill in the generalitie of it since there was so few persons in it sometimes but forty three Legates and Abbots being put in and some titular Bishops onely sometimes forty eight for a good while not above sixty the Prelates of other Nations not there not a Bishop or Divine of all Germany there in the yeare 1546 no French Bishop could be there and therefore no Generall Council As the French King said page 314. and by reason of the paucitie of the persons then there forty eight Bishops and five Cardinalls and not one of the Prelates remarkable for learning and some of them Lawyers and some Courtiers the Decrees of the Council about Apocryphall books and making authenticall a translation differing from the Originall did displease in Germany as it is set down in the History of the Trent Council p. 163. * And for the freenesse of it the Collier might deny that by severall passages for absolute autority was given to the Legats of the Pope to procreed without consent of Council p. 113. Derogations from the liberty of the Council noted p. 232. the Bishop of Fiesole complained of to the Pope for reasonable freedom p. 167 8. Amongst the three things the Pope admonished his Legates one was to take beed that by no means the Popes authority be disputed on p. 164 And yet this is the point which formally denominates the Popish Religion And his being Head of the universall Church as he presumes is the point which denominates their Church the Roman Catholick Yea it was protested against by the French King which was of force against it according to some prohibentis conditio potior as p. 320. And therefore cannot the Popish Collier finally resolve his faith in a Council upon its own conciliarie authority And assuredly if the Arrian Cobler and the Popish Collier were both to dispute the same point one by the Scripture the other by the Council the Cobler would sooner convince the Collier by Scripture which he doth acknowledge as certain than the Collier the Cobler by the Council which he doth not acknowledge so yea if the Collier and the Cobler were equally disposed to finde truth indifferently to their opinions the Cobler might sooner settle his mind in Scripture than the Collier in a Council for the Cobler hath no more to do than to finde out the sense of Scripture and then he is satisfied but the Collier when he hath found out the sense of the Council is not satisfied because if he were assured that a free and generall Council was infallible he might yet doubt of the hypothesis whether this Council were so But it is false in these that a generall Council though free is infallible and that we are bound to believe so for why then would not the Pope put the main question out of question Either he did suspect the point himself or did suspect his own Subjects in the Council or did suspect that it did not bind unto necessary belief or else he was deceived in point of prudence which is most unlikely to have that waved Num. 5. He proceeds This your Doctrine maketh the definitions of true Councils and their finall determinations to be indeed no definitions nor finall determinations at all Ans This in reasoning would prove a Schisme a dicto secundum quid Because I deny them to be finall in your sense therefore I deny them to be finall in all sense is not consequent It doth not follow from the deniall of one species to the deniall of all Finall definitions as to humane Tribunals I acknowledge them but finall so as to exclude the examination of them by Scripture I deny Final as to peace and not to be refractary I grant but finall as to necessary assent upon the Councils account I deny That we may finde truth by them I yield because so many abilities united with Gods
thirdly I can charge the Council of Trent with contradictions to it self and the Trent Council was a generall Council in the opinion of my Adversary therefore that grace is voluntarily received is their opinion and that yet we cannot know whether we are in state of grace includes a contradiction as if we did not know our own will what it does This absurdity was urged by Catharinus in the Trent Council Again not to speak of some of them who had voted the Edition vulgar to be authentick and yet did except against the interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sin pardoned in the History of the Council p. 207 there is a contradiction noted by the German Divines in the sixth session the seventh ch Where it is said of justice which every one receives according to his measure quam Spiritus Sanctus partitur singulis prout vult et secundum propriam cujusque dispositionem et cooperationem Which the Holy Ghost doth impart as he will and according to every ones disposition and cooperation If according to his will then not according to our disposition for then it is not as he will And so in the thirteenth session in the first ch it is said of the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus which although we can scarce expresse in words and yet in the fourth ch it is called of the Holy Catholick Church Transubstantiation convenienter et proprie appositly and properly And in the second Canon of the same session it saith of Transubstantiation quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem apellat which the Catholick Church cals most fitly Transubstantiation Was the Council of Trent infallibly assisted or assisted with infallibility in these contradictions and yet it may be these not all Num. 9. But number the ninth will make an end of our cause if a Rodomontado of my Adversary could do the deed Thus And when you ask again why you are charged as if you were opposed to the true Catholick Church I answer Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church and consequently he had such a Church when your Reformation as you call it began But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many and important points of Doctrine not onely the Roman but all other Churches upon earth Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points And in plain English I tell you this Argument which is in lawfull form is unanswerable Ans So then But is this Achilles Is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas if we come near him it is but bombast First we deny it in the lawfulnesse of the forme which he asserts for it is concluding in the second figure affirmatively and in this regard onely it is unanswerable for it is not to be answered for want of forme But yet secondly lest they should think it is unanswerable in the matter we answer to the major first by distinguishing if he takes the true Catholick Church as in the Apostles Creed he commits an equivocation for so it cannot be taken in the minor because we have in the minor the Roman Church and other Churches now the Roman is a visible Church he means and so he means the other Churches to be visible for we cannot properly oppose he will think any but visible Churches but in the Creed is meant the Church invisible which is the object of faith If he takes it for the true Catholick Church visible as always perspicuous and flourishing in visibility in all the parts of it it is denied that the Church Catholick is so visible and therefore we deny the major and need not say any thing to the minor and yet also we deny the minor because if it were not so visible we could not be said to oppose it And he cannot prove that we opposed all other Churches because they were not in his sense visible and therefore how can he say that we opposed all other Churches since if they were visible in the parts to some that were Neighbors yet not visible to the world generally Was the Church lesse the Church in the Primitive times when it wanted candles to be seen in the night or the seven thousand which Elijah did not know of lesse belonging to the Church of the Jews because they did not openly professe the true Religion How then can it be said rationally that we opposed all Churches for how could he or any one man under Heaven know all the Churches of the world then Yea thirdly in how many and important points did the Reformers oppose the Greek Church and the Waldenses who as the Author of the History of the Trent Council sayes had forsaken the Church of Rome then four hundred years before in his fifth book Yea fourthly the major proposition supposeth for all times and places doth it not for so the Catholick Church is properly taken as including all times and places and so we deny the minor we did not oppose all Churches of all times Dato non concesso that we did at the Reformation oppose not onely the Roman but all other Churches yet did we not oppose all Churches or the Roman of the Primitive times and therefore did we not oppose the Catholick Church Yea yet fifthly we distinguish dissent from opposition Although opposition includes a difference yet every difference doth not include an opposition for then St. Cyprian had opposed the Church in differing from it upon the point of Rebaptization And if it be said that the point of Rebaptization was not then defined by the Church we say that yet this consideration doth not make every difference to have in it the nature of opposition for then though St. Cyprian had not opposed the authority of a Church in a Council yet had he opposed the authoritie of the Church which then did bind him more than the Trent Council doth us And that St. Cyprian did so oppose the Church was not then held by the Church Catholick Sixthly to return the Argument upon them Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church and consequently he had such a Church when their deformation went on in the Trent Council but they then in very many and important points of Doctrine did oppose all true Catholicks therefore without doubt they opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points as in communion under one kind in Transubstantiation in Purgatorie in the merit of works in seven Sacraments of proper name in invocation and religious worship of the Saints in Images Yea the Roman Church hath more formally opposed the whole Church because in the Trent Council it would have the Roman Church to be the Catholick which supposeth that all Christians must strike sail to them or else they are sunke Seventhly we tell him wherein the Romanist hath divided from the whole Church but he doth not tell us
the History of the Councill of Trent and observeth so long deliberations so many interposals so hot disputes such changes so many notable Contradictions of many of them say that all Controversies were there infallibly ended As Tertullian to the Heathens appello Conscientiam vestram I appeale unto their Consciences when they are preparing for death whether Cardinall or Canonist or Pope dare affirme it This for the major As to the assumption I also may distinguish if he takes texts of Scripture as principles in order to Conclusions I hold them onely infallible If he takes texts of Scripture as in terms exclusively to Conclusions immediate so I do not hold them onely infallible but also the Conclusions which do naturally descend by prime resultance from them Now a Council may apply principles of Scripture which may resolve a question unto faith but this is not done always and absolutely and when it is done it is done by vertue of Scripture They do not determine things by Divine inspiration but by humane disquisition as was distinguished in the Trent Council and therefore may they misse possibly in their discourse Yea to the assumption I also say though I hold texts of Scripture onely infallible yet I onely do not hold them so but the Fathers as before the Nicene Doctors as before yea and some in the Trent Councill too as we have noted And again if any thing else be infallible then a Council if a Council then according to them the Council of Trent if the Council of Trent why did they not determine of Bishops whether they were jure Divino or not and why did they not determine of Residence whether jure Divino or not If they could not how were they infallible If they would not how were they faithfull Again If you be necessitated as you say to extend the texts of Christs assistance to his Church unto infallibility for the ending of controversies otherwise we shall remaine disputing without end or possibility of end and onely for this as he seems to meane then there is no necessity at all And the consequence is cleare without his absurdity upon the former distinction because plain things need not come into question and points of question need not an infallible decision Num. 13. In the thirteenth number I have two things chiefly to consider first his charge of impertinency in my declaring the difficulty of assent by the unanimous consent of all the Fathers of all ages every where Secondly I am to consider his Apology for waving the authority of the Fathers in this debate He asks me as to the first What connexion hath the perusall of every judgment of every Father of every age every where with that obligation which I put of following these Canons of Councils which make to the decision of those most known Controversies about which we contend Ans First there is a connexion of this discourse with the ground of that about which we are conversant namely the authority of the Church For what authority can they produce for the distinction of the Church from no Church in any profession or from a false Church but the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church What Council did make themselves by their own authority to be indeed Christians the first Councils were not antecedent to Christianity but Christianity to them So then either the Church is distinguished by the consent of the Fathers or by Scripture If by Scripture then is it the first principle and the last and a primo ad ultimum we have no more dependence upon the Church than from Scripture If by the consent of the Fathers then I spake before to good purpose though my Adversary said it was nothing to our purpose For the Councils we must be ruled by absolutely as he supposeth are the Councils of the Church are they not well then if the Church be distinguished by the unanimous consent of the Fathers which I suppose they will not deny then the discourse about the consent of the Fathers was not eccentricall to the point in hand Let them remember the rule of Aquinas Omne reducitur ad principium Secondly it beares connexion with the question about Councils per modum regulae as the rule by which they goe in their definitions Either they went by Scripture or by the consent of the Fathers If they went by Scripture then by my Adversaries opinion we must goe that way because we are to be infallibly directed by them If by the joint consent of the Fathers then surely our discourse was very proper and pertinent or if they will not have the Fathers consent to be considered so much as contradistinguished unto Scripture because as the Legates and Presidents of the Trent Council said the holy Fathers have no other grounds but Scripture yet the consent of the Fathers is distinguished from the object upon which their consent is terminated So then as for the sense of Scripture either the Councils went by the rule of the Father's joint interpretation or not if by it then we have our purpose of defending the reasonablenesse of our speech about the Fathers If not then by the common rules of understanding the sense of Scripture and then why should we not goe that way for our resolution which they go So that my Adversary needed not to have given me an admonition of holding close to the matter And yet I take that admonition very kindely that my Adversaries might be obedient to their own law That which he saies Is the judgement of every Father of every age the judgement of a Generall Council is nothing For though it be not the judgement of the Councill in recto yet I hope it was in causa not that they were determined by the judgement of one separately from the rest but because it is supposed by my Adversaries that they all agreed If they say they did not then let my Adversaries agree it as well as they can with the rest of their Church who stand as much for our obedience to them as to any other authority of the Church And whether they hold the Fathers as Judges or as witnesses it is all one to me because I speak of their authority in general So then if the judgement of every Father of every age disjunctively or distributively be not the judgement of a general Council which my Antagonists think unreasonable yet conjunctively and complexively I hope it is or should be according to their common principles And if they lie at catch upon the ambiguity of the termes of every Father of every age they commit a plain fallacy in distribution and also are peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for if they meane every Father of every age distributively it doth not contradict me who speake of them in consent And now shall I come to the second taske to hunt out the reason why he would not deale with me in this Controversie by the authority of the Fathers He saies
the right state of the question All these things he says are necessary to a Church as a Community To follow him again we say first that we deny that all these things are absolutely necessary to a Church as a community for severall Churches have differed from one another in some of them as in Fasts and in the keeping of Easter and in forms of Prayer for as for the Liturgies they talk of they are filii populi Secondly though necessary to a Church yet not simply necessary to salvation Thirdly some of them may be necessary to a Church visible not necessary to the Church as invisible but he tampers about the change of the state of the question to make what is necessary to salvation to be necessary to a Church as visible and whatsoever is necessary to a Church as visible to be necessary to salvation which cannot be true For as for that that there is no salvation to be had out of the Church according to that of St. Cyprian in his Tract de simplicitate Prelatorum Habere non potest Deum Patrem qui Ecclesiam non habet Matrem yet this is to be understood of those that are desertors of the Church as is to be seen there by the comparation of antecedents and consequents and the whole scope of the Tract And therefore simply what is necessary to a Church visible is not necessary to salvation because without contradiction to the Father it may be possible to have salvation without the Church And therefore may I conclude that my Adversary did not well comply with his promise of stating this question a little more fully and distinctly And yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians Ans All he says is not true For the Sacraments are plainly enough set down in Scripture for all that is therein essentiall and necessary Then secondly the Argument is not concluding these things are not plainly set down in Scripture therefore very many and very important differences amongst Christians For first the unplainesse of them in Scripture is no efficient cause thereof for they might in those things give every one their liberty in their particular Churches as St. Cyprian doth plainly shew us in his second B. first Ep. where having spoken of some who did hold those things which they did once take up he speaks notwithstanding sed salvo inter Collegas pacis et Concordiae vinculo quaedam propria quae apud se semel sunt usurpata retinere quae in re nec nos cuiquam facimus aut legem damus cum habeat in Ecclesiae administrationis voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisquae praepositus rationem actus sui Domino redituras So he Therefore may they not all practise the same thing and yet there be no morall difference if negative differences not positive contentions if some yet not many if many yet not important in point of salvation because each Bishop in his Church hath free power to establish what he thinks fit And what Generall Council hath bound the universall Church in all these particularities Yea again the unplainess of these things in Scripture is not the causa sine quae non of these differences for there are differences with the Roman Church against others even in some things which are plainly set down in Scripture as in point of justification against Images to be worshipped against half Communion and generally the differences betwixt us And indeed what is there so plain about which some have not differed And then again how is this mended by a Council Not by their Council of Trent because in their Decrees the sense is not plain Therefore let them find better provision than God hath made directly in Scripture before they find fault with Gods direction as to those things which are important unto salvation for otherwise the term is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is beside the state of the question Nextly he objects the differences amongst us about Bishops with such and such a power and authority and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons and without these no true Sacraments things so necessary to the salvation of all men Ans This is a question belonging rather to the Church than to salvation and therefore we need not say any more to it Yet secondly the differences amongst us are for the most part stirred upon the occasion of the Bishop of Rome and therefore the Pontificians have no cause to impute to us as a fault the disagreement of Protestants in this point because it ariseth in great part from the domination of the Bishop of Rome They thought by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they could never sufficiently gainsay the Roman Bishop but by cashiering the whole genus and therefore to make all sure they denied all Bishops since the Argument is good a negatione generis ad negationem speciei if no Bishop then not universal Indeed here they erred if they thought that the position of Bishops did inferr the universall for it doth not follow a positione generis ad positionem speciei determinatae and therefore they might have Bishops and not him Yea the holding of Bishops by Divine right is as like a mean to destroy the Pope's authority as any other And to this purpose was it so holty disputed in the Trent Council and some lost their favor with the Pope for being eager in the affirmative And in the promotion of Cardinals at the end of the Synod the Pope professed he would passe by those who had stood for Residence and Bishops to be jure Divino For this institution of them by Divine right made them not to depend upon the Pope which would weaken his authority And therefore as to the Controversie about Bishops whether we derive them and their authority from Scripture my Adversary might have done well to have said nothing since if it be necessary to be determined clearly then the Trent Council is to be blamed for not determining it If it be not necessary then why doth he put it in amongst necessary questions To this therefore we say no more than thus Had there not been Bishops there would not have been a Pope and therefore is this an argument that there were Bishops in the Antient Church for how otherwise could there have been a Bishop universall so also had there not been a Pope there would have been lesse contention about Bishops as appears by this that if Petrus Balma who was the last Bishop of Geneva would have turned Protestant he might have continued Bishop As for no true Sacraments without Priests and Deacons we say if he takes Priests in a proper sense we deny that there is now any such to be because there is now no reall externall sacrifice If he takes it in the Analogicall sense we have no reason to doubt of true Priests being rightly ordained And for
that by which we consist Therefore it is said Rom 10.17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God And if it be said that it comes by the word of God spoken It is answered the word of God spoken is to be measured now by the word of God written unlesse we had as good reason to believe those that now speak in the Church as the Jews had to believe the Prophets or the first Christians the Apostles But secondly if the searching of the Scriptures was of use for the comfort and confirmation of them then this brings more honor upon the Scriptures because this is more to be comforted and confirmed by them for comfort at least respects the application of the Gospell to us and if the searching of the Scripture be of use hereunto as in the way of a particular faith then surely to a generall faith much more Thirdly therefore if he means by comfort particular assurance then he turns Protestant in this opinion if not he will be little differing from faith But fourthly these Beroeans were here commended for searching the Scriptures whether to comfort and confirmation or to faith and therefore surely we cannot be discommended hereafter for allowing the use of the Bible to the people But this he occurrs to Neither hence is it made evident that the old Testament was thrust into every mans hand of the Beroeans but that they deputed their chief Doctors to make this search and that for this point onely namely our Saviours comming which he even now said is clearly in Scripture Well as we have noted we have here the main and denominative point of Christians by his confession clearly in Scripture but the old Testament was not thrust into the hands of every man of the Beroeans no not to search them as to this one point Oh how tender they are here in this matter Si non caste tamen caute But was it put into the hands of any of the Beroeans if so why not into the hands of all If not shall the Beroeans in the text suppose onely for the Doctors and for none of the People But some it may be would have abused the Scripture and would none of the Doctors no will he say not in a clear point but would the Doctors then in a controverted point If so how should we be ruled by them Yea neither the people would have abused the Scriptures in a clear point by his own Argument because they erred therefore it is not plainly set down So then if this point about our Saviors coming be plainly in Scripture as he cannot but acknowledge it seems then the people could not err in it But then again secondly it is not like to be meant of the Doctors because it being a plain point in Scripture there was no need for them to search the Scriptures daily Therefore most certainly it is meant of the people for the Doctors also are not wont to be spoken of in a common notion of the nation Thirdly it is to be understood of these Beroeas in opposition to the Thessalonians as appears by the text these were more noble or more ingenuous than those of Thessalonica now these in Thessalonica were not of the Doctors for it is meant of the Synagogue there as appears by compare of the first verse of the ch and the fifth with the rest And so also those who are spoken of in Beroea were also of the Synagogue of the Jews there as appears by the tenth verse now the Synagogue was not a Congregation of Doctors but of the people with a Master And so it was a rule with the Jew ten make a people and where there is a people there is to be a Synagogue and where a Synagogue there a Master So then this being spoken of them of the Synagogue per so it is most like to be understood de communi of the people And fourthly if it were to be understood of the Doctors I hope the people should have believed them upon their own word without the Doctors searching the Scriptures daily For if the Doctors be not to be believed without their searching of the Scriptures daily then for ought I see we have done and the Controversie betwixt us is at an end because it is to no purpose that their searching of the Scriptures should be a condition of the peoples belief unlesse also the people be allowed to give their belief conditionately to the search and how can this be done by them unlesse they compare what is said by the Doctors with the Scriptures For how shall we believe the Doctors upon their bare word that they have searched the Scriptures so then in effect upon this account the main principle and last resolutive of the peoples faith must be the Doctors meer word and why then should they discourse fallibly and conclude infallibly as Stapleton would have it To conclude then the debate of this text we may have I suppose clearly these two corollaries from it First that it is not onely lawfull but commendable whatsoever the Church says to search the Scriptures whether those things be so for the Church cannot have greater authority upon us than St. Paul no nor so much neither till they prove it better and yet these Beroeans were commended for it And if in a point clearly set down in Scripture as this was by his own acknowledgement then in other points much rather because by his own argument also in such the Doctors may be more mistaken Yea because also according to our principles positive faith in such points is not so necessary to salvation untill we see it plainly proposed Yea also when a point controverted appears plain the disbelief is not damnative by the nature of the verity but because it destroys Gods veracity which is the prime tenure of all truth Secondly we have also this Corollary that faith comes by searching of the Scriptures for so it follows which my Adversary had no mind to take notice of in the very next verse the twelfth many of them therefore believed Therefore namely upon searching of the Scriptures so that they did not believe blindely and then searched the Scriptures but searched the Scriptures first and then rationally upon principles of Scripture believed And these two propositions are sufficient to unhinge the Pope and all his Cardinalls and all their Religion as differing So that now the texts whereunto he would wisely have answered out of due place being vindicated from his batteries and standing against him in their full strength and force we may now after this reinforcement of them make shorter worke having already given him more than he brings And therefore as for his Argument in this Par. Num. 15. That this is not plainly set down in Scripture that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture and therefore not all things is answered by our deniall of the Antecedent and the proof of the contrary For the moment of
with him in kind it is said in Eusebius that for some time in the Church some books were doubted of now let me ask how came the Christians afterwards to be assured of those books to be also Canonicall Not by the former Church for they doubted thereof not by the latter Church that was impossible How then came the Christians first to be perswaded of those books to be also authentick If it be said by the present Church we suppose a time before the Church then was thereof assured Yea if it be said that private Christians were therein resolved by a Council we say that some were assured of books before doubted of before there was any General Council Yea how came those of the Council upon the supposition to be so determined of them It will be said by them that they were assured by the Spirit of God then as Stapleton's argument is since there is one formal reason of faith the last resolution must be by the Spirit Num. 24. In the twenty fourth number he argues against me thus that if my opinion were true then let but an Heathen or Turk or Jew read the Gospell he must by reading of it see it as clearly to be Gods word as he might see the Sun by his light Ans If they must be answered toties quoties we say they suppose that which is not to be supposed that we say the Scripture may be seen by its own light naturally We say not so Supernaturall objects are not seen by natural faculty for then what needed the testimony of their Church The object is fair were the faculty fit The Spirit of God doth not relate to the object directly but to the faculty enlightning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle in his Metaphysicks and much more therefore is our minde unable to look up upon that which is not only removed from sense but also from reason therefore is the apprehensive power raised by the Spirit of God to make a proportion betwixt the faculty and the object and the difficulty of apprehension is more from the weaknesse of the faculty than the sublimity of the object therefore if an Heathen or Turk or Jew were by the Spirit of God inlightned he would by reading of the Scripture have such an eye as might discern the Scriptures to be the word of God And also neither can any one by reading of the determinations of Councils see that they are the word of God Hath God provided better for their clear conversion by the voice of the Church than by his written word Doth the Turk and Jew run to the Church of Rome as naturally as the Lamb to the dam Doth the Jew think he hath reason to recieve the Scripture from the Roman as to the old Testament Or doth he not think that the Roman should take the Bible from him and therefore in course the Jew is said to offer it the Pope as he goes to his Palace If this were true it is impossible thousands should not be yearly converted by this means Ans No if the Roman could help it for he would not suffer them to have the common use of the Bible yea also may we say the same if they could not but believe by the knowledge of the Church at first sight Yea surely the reason why so few of them doe believe is not because they are not disposed to believe by reading of the Scripture but because they are not disposed to read them This effect indeed he vaunts is to be performed by the Preachers of the Church who have found the concurrence of Gods grace to the conversion of millions Ans It is well that they have so good reason to magnifie preaching and yet this action is not by their great ones so highly esteemed and this practice I think they took from their Adversaries who had the first fruits of this office and therefore if it be so the argument is available as well to them But secondly the conversion was not it seems ex vi ministerii but by the concurrence of Gods grace and surely the concurrence of Gods grace is sufficient to conversion by reading But thirdly if the Preachers of their Church as Xavier with the concurrence of Gods grace did convert millions then I hope infallibility may be even in private Doctors or else we have no need of infallibility in order to conversion But he supposeth that reading of the Scriptures alone did never find the concurrence of Gods grace to convert any single man that we could hear of Ans More may be done than they know and more may they say of their Preachers than was done Secondly were their Preachers Preachers of the Church objective If so then they had other denominations than did become them who had a mind to follow the Apostles who rather commended Christ to the Church than the Church to Christians Yea if St. Paul 2 Cor. 4 5. says We preach not our selves but Jesus Christ the Lord and our selves your servants for Jesus sake how could they preach themselves or the Roman Doctors to be the Masters of their faith and the Roman Church not onely to be the Mother but Mistrisse of the Christian world Thirdly if any did believe by them they did not believe for them and therefore was not their authority the ground of their faith nay not the authority of the Roman Church for that can have no greater authority than St. Paul had and what said he of himself 1 Ep. Cor. 3.5 For what is Paul and what is Apollos but Ministers by whom ye believed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And fourthly is not reading of the word an ordinance of God and therefore was the Law read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day and is there any ordinance of God with which he doth not at all concur though he is not bound to it yet he doth it gratiously Yea fiftly was not Junius converted to the Christian faith by reading of the first Chapter of St. John with the concurrence of God's grace N. 24 25 26 27 28 29. In all these he prosecutes the same discourse against the clearnesse of the Scripture to be the word of God by its own light And all the arguments therein do in effect hang upon one string which is a supposition that we should hold this principle of the Scripture's being the word of God to be as clearly assented to by a natural faculty as a principle of Science Only in the 29. number he doth dispute against the help of the Spirit to see the Scripture to be credible for it self That supposition we have already taken away and so the string being broken all those arguments must fall yet what in them is new and of moment I shall touch and remove As to the want of suffrages from the Antients for my opinion in this point which he chargeth it with in his twenty fourth Par. I say no more than that I have said more than he had any mind to
they were read in the Church The strength of this reasoning is resolved into this proposition Whatsoever is read in the Church is to be taken for Canonical and this proposition is false by the practice of the Church of England by St. Jerom's distinction yea also by the Canon it self for it sayes Liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur Itmay be lawfull also to read the passions of the Martyrs when their anniversary days are celebrated And also if that reason did bind the Fathers in the Council of Carthage to establish them as Canonical why did it not as well bind St. Jerom in whose time the books also were read if they were universally read And if the Church of God was sufficiently instructed in point of faith without them till St. Austin's time which was above four hundred years after Christ as Bellarmin confesseth why may not the Church be well enough without them still For either there must be nothing in them materiall or expositionall which is simply necessary for Gods Church or else the Church of God for the purest and best times must be unprovided thereof as Canonically to ground faith If they confesse the former we have what we would if the latter besides other consequences they destroy the rule of faith to Councils themselves or as some now will say by succession of tradition Therefore by this instance he gets nothing it is neither proof nor disproof Num. 28. Here he triumphs before the victory he doth here put a new face upon an old argument If you say that we must have a speciall Spirit that is new eyes to see it then you who have this Spirit are all Prophets discovering by private Revelation made to your selves that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover This argument prophylactical preserves them little A speciall Spirit is considerable two ways either in ordine ad subjectum or in ordine ad objectum it may be speciall in the first sense and not in the latter Now it is the speciall Spirit in the latter sense which makes the Prophet when some new thing is revealed thus we deny any speciall Spirit which rather belongs to them who will not have all things for necessary faith and manners revealed in Scripture that so they may find in the Church by tradition the points of their Religion which they cannot find in Scripture as is noted But also the speciall faith in the first sense may be subdistinguished it is considerable either as oppositly to those who have not faith or respectively to those who have faith in the first way we say it is speciall for all men have not faith as the Apostle speaks 2 Thes 3.2 but if it be taken respectively to those who have faith we say it is not speciall but common for there is no true dogmaticall faith but such as Stapleton and their Schoolmen confesse Yea this argument may be returned to them too if they say they are inlightned by the Spirit to see all truth infallibly to be delivered by the Church they have the new eyes and they are all Prophets discerning by private revelation made to them selves that which all mankind besides could not discover So then the other old argument which here he incrustates that if the evidence of Scripture to be the word of God were such as of a prime principle as this It is impossible that any thing should be and not be in the self same circumstances then all should assent to it as they do to this principle is again slighted for first every one hath not that supernaturall light or eye to see the truth of that first principle that the Scripture is the word of God which we have said before but then secondly the prime principle in Metaphysicks are not so clear as to exclude all necessity of means of knowledge of them though they do naturally perswade assent so there are means of knowing the Scripture which do not prejudice their autopisty through the Spirit of God and therefore there may be a failing of belief Yea thirdly the Spirit bloweth where it listeth John 3.8 Yea fourthly many truths are assented to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he said which are not prophorically acknowledged And yet some of their own men have confessed this truth being overcome by the soveraignty of it Fifthly it is retorted if the authority of the Church were the prime principle for the evidence of faith then all would assent to it but all doe not assent to it therefore by his own argument the Church's authority is not the prime principle But the assistance of the Spirit he then pleads a fortiori for the Church the Church having far more proof of her assistance than every private Protestant Ans First we have no to need be put upon the compare with the Church If the Church have infallible assistance herein yet private Christians may have it too and that would be sufficient for us in this point But secondly the Church is no otherwise infallibly certain hereof than we for this is assured to every one that votes it in the Council the same way if indeed they doe give their suffrage upon a ground infallible Thirdly the private Christian is assured hereof by the Spirit for himself therefore the Council needs not be infallible herein as to teach it because we are thus taught of God If the compare were thus if the private Christian were thus assisted to teach others much more the Council this would be somewhat like but the private Christian doth not undertake this and yet doth it not follow that this infallibility doth attend the Council which doth undertake to teach others because there is use of its teaching without infallibility and no need of its teaching infallibly this point which we are infallibly perswaded of by the Spirit of God And fourthly we deny that there is any points of as much consequence wherein the Church should be assisted with infallibility as this that the Scripture is the word of God because if we be assured of this we need not depend upon any infallibility in the Church for other points since all things necessary are with sufficient plainnesse set down in the Scripture Fifthly as before the Christians were assured hereof before Pope or Council in which he placeth the authority infallible of the Church And again if the universall Church had this priviledge they speak of they are to prove themselves to be first a true part and then also that the part hath the property of the whole and when they have done these we can say as much yea more for our own Church And lastly they are yet to shew their clearer proofs of assistance to the Church than a private Christian hath for the hardest of all points namely that the Scripture is the word of God which indeed if it be compared with the points of Controversie in Divinity is not the hardest point
not calling him so had contradicted him But then the supposed differences are about Circumstances by his own confession What is this to matter of faith in necessary doctrine which is the center point of the question unto which all the lines should be referred and therfore he had done nothing if he had done more in this kinde And I thinke we are as sure of the right in such varieties as they And also he might have remembred that rule of Saint Cyrill of Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let things of curiositie not be spoken of in the Church But the sense of them is that we must be Papists or no Christians But if they were Turks we might say more And where nothing is necessarie any thing is abundant He comes next to my last shift as he calleth it that the people doe fix their faith upon that which is interpreted not upon the interpretation To this he objects thus you may fix your faith upon a lie for how know you whether the thing delivered you by the interpreter be Gods word or the interpreters own word specially when we know not who this interpreter was how skilful how faithful how true a copie he used Ans To the confirmation of what he here objects against were added distinct reasons or reasonable distinctions These he saies nothing to but what cavil he can make against the conclusion he is willing to without answer to my reasons 2. We believe that our people can better believe the word of God in a translation than their people without a translation for the people must believe their Church without the knowledge of any translation Let them make their faith good without a translation and we shall make our faith as good in a translation And I think our people may as well credit the Authority of our Church in a translation as their people may credit the Authority of their Church without a translation 3. By their own Argument they are more in the dark for if the perswasive of our faith be the certainty who this interpreter was how skilful how faithful how true a copy he used because they do not know who the interpreter of St. Matthews Gospel was into Greek how skilful how faithful how true a copy he used how can they believe it And therefore we return him his own words how know you that this translation doth not conveigh their own fansies in the place of Gods word Do they know it because their fansie of their Church tells them that this is Gods word Thus then they may have a double phantastical assurance and nothing else This they are forced to hold sufficient Yet how doth this agree with their own acknowledgements that the vulgar latin as to this is also a translation and yet as they must confess that it is so far a true translation as it doth agree with the original They cannot resolve their faith into the original never proposed to them Into the translation they say they do resolve it And this must be the written word What written word is that which is neither translation nor original For the Greek is neither their translation nor their original And yet surely the Greek is more like to be the original than the latin for if there was no Hebrew copie extant as they say then was the Latin a translation out of the Greek And if they say the Greek was not the original then the Latin is a translation without an original which is oppositum in apposito So then when all comes to all we are as well setled in the tenure of our assurance as to the Gospel of St. Matthew as they or more because we stand to that which they have but a translation of And they have but the Latin Church for their Latin we have the universal Church for the Greek But forsooth they believe their Church to be infallible we do not believe the Church to be infallible But what then if the authority of the Church were crescent according to the opinion of the recipient then the Scripture had not been the word of God unless men had thought so And then opinion would make faith because it would make infallibility As then they must say that their Church was assured by the Holy Ghost for so the termes of their Synod run Haec sacrosancta Oecumenica generalis Synodus in spiritu sancto legitime congregata that their Latin translation i◠if it be at all authentique so may we ultimately believe the Gospel of St. Matthew to be in the matter of it authentique For if there be not sufficient assistance of the spirit of God to Christians severally as to necessity of Salvation how did the Christians do before there was ever a general Council What is added hereabouts might have been spoken without Sarcasmes or might have been left out We can know which of those so many Greek Copies is the onely true one as well as they And a clown will be as able to understand which is the best English Translation as if there were such difference as well as with them he can understand which is a right General Council or which was in the right as to the varieties in the Latine Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth And though they cannot confer the Translation with the Original No more can the Roman People compare their Translation with the Originals and yet Bellarmine as before saies in some cases we must have recourse to the Originals But did not Xavier convert the Infidels yes they will say So then And did he not preach that which is in the Bible Yes they will say And did not they believe Yes they will say Now then how was this Faith wrought in them By the Spirit of God they will say or they must say For they could not compare that which was said by him with the Originals or with the Doctrine of the Church So then our people can believe without conferring a Translation with the Originals as well as theirs And they know who said Si fides in doctos selos caderet nihil esset pauperius Deo And again Surgunt indocti rapiunt coelum c. as the Father The very neck then of this point may be thus resolved In the order of credibles their first Proposition is The Church is infallible Our first Proposition is The Scripture is the Word of God Now their Proposition is grounded in Authority or else is believed by its own light Not by its own light for then the Scripture may be believed so which they deny Then it is grounded in Authority That either Humane or Divine Humane Authority cannot make Faith No Divine Authority but either that of Scripture or internal by the Holy Ghost Not by Scripture then that Proposition of theirs is not the first Then by the Holy Ghost and then by the same way we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God as they believe the Church to be infallible And
have been damned notwithstanding absolute necessity knowes no dispensations But therefore he produceth a Text for absolute necessity St. Iohn the 3.5 Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of heaven Ans If we compare this verse with the third we need not make any other construction then of a necessity of being born from above Neither is it likely that Christ would have spoken no otherwise to Nicodemus of baptism had he meant it so And Ferus though he speaks of this sense ad literam yet hath he other senses thereof And if it be compared with the other Text St. Matthew 3.11 you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire as that Text is to be understood by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so may this also notwithstanding the order of the words But 2. Dato non concesso that it is to be understood of Baptismal water yet the Rhemists upon the place do confess that in two cases Baptismal water is not necessary Namely in the case of martyrdome and if they have a desire of it but are prevented necessarily by death And the reason thereof is sufficient because God hath not bound his grace in respect of his own freedome to the Sacraments and so Ferus upon the place Deus enim non alligavit potentiam suam Sacramentis c. God hath not tied his own power to the Sacraments By his ordinate will indeed he gives grace by the Sacraments But nevertheles he can give it without the Sacrament Let them then tell me why Infants may not have rem Sacramenti without the seale as if God should have no favour for Infants because they cannot be qualified for the priviledge Let then the Rhemists and Ferus be compurgators for the pernicious doctrine of mine as he calls it And now whatsoever testimony he produceth of the necessity of baptism unles St. Austin's as to Infants they will stand very well with my termes in their ordinary sense which doth not contradict an ordinary necessity of it to Infants but again that all the Fathers were of this opinion I can deny I except Tertullian And St. Austin for those of age holdes but an ordinary necessity as appears in his 4. b. De Bapt. Contra Donat. 23. ch This ordinary necessity I stand for He himself intends no more by his testimonies Dr. Tayler's and others and therefore he absolves me himself but I cannot absolve him from ignorance in the Elench This doth not contradict me who do dispute now against an absolute necessity which he must maintain or else in this he comes short of his design And also that that allowance of baptism of Infants after it be done doth not inferre an absolute necessity of their being damned in the judgment of the Fathers if they were not Baptized if they will take Mr. Hookers opinion for all let them consult him in his 5. b. 33. p. where he saith I know there are many sentences found in the books and writings of the antient Fathers to prove both Ecclessiastical and Moral defects in the Ministers of Baptism a bar to the heavenly benefit thereof Now in Lay-men I trow there are Ecclesiastical defects for there is a defect in not being Ecclesiastical And therefore whether others mistake the Fathers either in the point of fact or in the reason of that allowance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he gives me a Syllogism which we will not neglect because it is very rare with him He disputes upon my distinction of necessity thus This precept is necessarily to be fulfilled this precept is not plainly set down in Scripture therefore all necessary points are not plainly set down in Scripture This hath the face but not the form of a Syllogism But to pass that we answer therefore that this Syllogism doth not conclude contradictorily to the state of the question which is whether all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Now all that is necessary to be done is larger then all that is necessary to be done unto Salvation Though all things necessary to be done unto Salvation are necessary to be done yet all that is necessary to be done is not necessary to be done unto Salvation The former are necessary necessitate medii the latter necessitate praecepti Now the knowledg of the former is simply necessary the knowledg of the latter is not so necessary Whatsoever is known to be praecepted is to be necessarily done but whatsoever is praecepted is not necessary to be known So that also his Syllogism was peccant in the fallacie of the consequent He followes me then your Answer will not helpe you out here whatsoever is necessarily inferred from the Scriptures is binding in the vertue of the principles why so because he saies because you cannot shew that this precept given to the parents is necessarily inferred out of Scripture So now he is upon the minor of the former Syllogism he would then prove it by a negative Induction Not out of the Institution of our Saviour for he also instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist not necessary for Infants Ans first this is no argument it doth not follow from the denial of one species to another because he did not institute the Eucharist as necessary for infants threfore he did not institute the Sacrament of baptism as necessary for Infants 2. they know there is not the same reason for the Institution of the Eucharist for Infants as for the Institution of baptism For this is administred to the child without its own faith the other is administred upon faith to confirmation 3. If they will be ruled by tradition and the authority of the Church the Eucharist was accounted also as necessary for Infants Now that tradition came from Christ as his institution or not if it did then there is some reason for baptism to Infants if not how shall we believe tradition or the authority of the Church He proceeds not out of substitution to Circumcision for so it should not be necessary to women To be even with them The high Priest was only of males the Pope succeeds the high Priest therefore the Popedome was not competible to Ioane some of them would fain have somewhat for woman to be proportionable to Circumcision of males towards the taking away of original sinne which should be an object of tradition But as the unmarried was included in the parent so the woman included under her husband as to this Yet such another argument we have then it should be necessary only for those of the Iewish nation As if Circumcision was inioyned to the Iew upon the quatenus of the nation and not as they were members of the Church under the same Covenant with Christians as to the substance thereof and therefore Eusebius saies of some of those under the law that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were reall Christians or in
true High Priest because he was accepted by the Jews 2. Without a true Pope the Church might erre and so erre in the choice of a true Pope and then we are never a whit the nearer And then Thirdly Christ was not the true High Priest because he was not accepted by the Jews but condemned And then again as well the Council might be infallible without a true High Priest as a General Council since without any Pope or Head thereof but the four General Councils they will say are infallible and yet we say there was no Pope then in their sense Therefore the Council of Arimnium which he speaks of here was not fallible upon that account namely because it was not confirmed by the Pope for the other Councils were not confirmed by a Pope neither there being then none And if the Council of Ariminum did themselves chuse a Pope then he was accepted by them and so he was the true Pope as before He saies then This true High Priest namely Christ erred not the true Head of the Church not erring the Church cannot be said to erre iterum Crispinus This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was Christ an external Head in the policy of the Church If so my Adversary and the Disciplinarians might joyn Principles for their Government And upon this account the Pope should not be stiled onely the Vicar of Christ and Successor of St. Peter but also the Successor of Christ the Sea being void by Christs promotion 2. If Christ be the true Head of the Church then the Pope is the false Head unless the Pope and Christ be all one or let them distinguish that Christ is a true Head in one sense namely the vital and spiritual Head the Pope onely the Ministerial Head and if they thus distinguish then though the vital Head doth not erre the Ministerial Head may erre Thirdly Christ as the true Head of his Church hath relation to the Church invisible but we have now to do with the Church as visible and upon this consideration the promises which are made in Christ and by Christ to the Church as St. Math. 16. and elsewhere should not be made to the Church virtual or to the Church Representative but invisible unto which properly he hath relation as Head And thus we acknowledg the promises made to the Church against errour are true namely against errour damnative Fourthly If they closely intend this which is said in service to the Roman Church so farre that it cannot erre because Christ is the Head then what Christ doth the Pope must do and what the Pope doth Christ must do but surely Christ did whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple so doth not the Pope do and Christ instituted his Supper in both kinds so doth not the Pope and then if what the Pope does the same Christ should be said to do Christ should contradict himself for by himself he instituted it in both kindes by the Pope in one and also Christ in Pope Liberius did subscribe against his own divinity Lastly there might have been another true Head Ministerial in the Church without prejudice to the former might there not If not farewell Pope and Monarchy If so then his answer is none that Christ was then the true Head of the Church for so neither Caiaphas nor any other should have been High Priest That of St. Athanasius was touched even now and it is good still if Councils be infallible since the reason why that of Ariminum should not be good is not good and therefore that might be as infallible with eight hundred Bishops as the Council of Nice with fewer since also according to my Adversary Christ is the true Head of his Church and therefore no matter whether there was any Ministerial Head or not to confirm it And as for exceptions against our English Translation again from some of our own we need say no more for we did not hold the Translation infallible As he said of a Christian that he is mundu◠mundandus cleare and yet to be cleansed so may it be said of the Translation it was good and yet might be mended and hath since since their exceptions But 2. If they will argue from imperfection in one place to a corruption in the whole it is a fallacy a dicto secundum quid but simply it will redound if they might so argue to the undoing of the infallibility of the Latin and purity too And then if he takes aim against our English by the Interpretation of that of Malachi or the Translation rather they bespeak a falsity in the charge for there was good reason by the connexion for that Reddition Here we have little but a rhapsody of repetitions of former grounds which being showed to be rotten he can solidly build nothing His first and principal ground here is that the Church cannot erre and this yet is the main question And therefore his compare betwixt the Priests declaring the Law of the Church and our Ministers declaring the Law of Scriptures by the Originals is not well grounded First Because that ground is not made good Secondly because we do not urge infallibility by the Ministers as they must And thirdly because though their Priests should infallibly conveigh the Doctrine of the Church yet the Doctrine of the Church may be fallible so is not Scripture in the Original And what he saith concerning most corrupted Translations hath been formerly answered in compare with their Latin which they pretend infallible and is not and therefore their Church is not infallible but we pretend not translations infallible though better then theirs is now That we are not assured of true Scripture and if so yet not of the true sense hath been answered as to things necessary and more assured then they by their Church That many necessary controversies are not conteined in Scripture hath been refelled and returned to them with use We have shewed that they have no reason to take away from the people the use of Scripture That Chaos of Corruptions in our English is more easily denied then proved and the recrimination to Latin is more easiely proved then denied And as for the taking of the law from the mouth of the Priest to be as secure as to take the Signification of a word in Scripture from the publique consent of all men they may know if they have no more for faith they have no faith Divine as the effect cannot exceed the cause so the assent cannot exceed the ground thereof Aqua tantum ascendit quantum descendit Their permission of Scripture is in that language which the people doth not understand and this is not then to permit them Scripture which is as he saies knowen to most and bred men in Learning And he hath no reason surely to speak of vulgar Translations for surely theirs is the vulgar Latin though Christned by the Trent Council and never a whit the better for that And I hope his
nothing If all the strength of Rome can sufficiently reinforce the former Texts against us for the Church universal and then for them reducant nos if they cannot redeant ad nos as the Father said N. 23. This Section is in good part made up of repetitions towards the reurging on their be half 1. Ep. to Tim. 3.15 How much Paper is taken up with petitions and repetitions petitions of the principle and repetitions of what was said before Upon this I distinguished of a double Pillar the Principal Scripture a subordinate one the Church And now he saies pleasantly this double dealing in distinguishing helpeth you not The Church must still be a true Pillar and ground of truth Ans Distinguishing is plain dealing double dealing makes confusion Therefore we distinguish again the Church may be a true Pillar and ground or establishment of truth ex officio and subordinately yet not infallible That which is infallible is such all that is such is not infallible Dic aliquid contra ut simus duo He should have contradicted or said nothing The people believed God and Moses saith the Scripture right But the copulative doth not alwaies equally reduplicate the act to diverse objects In the Proverbs it is said Fear God and the King yet the King is not to be feared equally with God So they believed God and Moses in the curt fashion of Hebrew speech But they did not believe Moses as they did God God for himself upon his own veracity Moses for God Now let them prove that God speaks by the Church as he spake by Moses and we have done God spake to Moses face to face Did he speak so to the Church He spake then to Moses immediatly doth he speak so to the Church He spake to and by Moses who was King in Iesuron Aaron was formally the High Priest Doth he speak so now to and by civil Magistrates If he does where are the priviledges of the Church which they vaunt of If not why do they urge that Text It is true Rex est mixta persona cum Sacerdote but this maxim is not for them Their maxim is inverted Sacerdos est mixta persona cum Rege Moses morally wrought miracles so does not now the Church If Xaries could indeed have wrought miracles in the Indies why did he corrupt the Gospel In short when they can prove that the Church speaks all they speak by Revelation from God as the Jews believed that what Moses spake he spake from God then they may apply that Text to God and the Church which is applied to God and Moses The sense of their believing Moses was that they believed what he said to be spoken from God this is now the question of the Church therefore they should not have compared Moses and the Church but Moses and an Apostle This had been more Symbolical but this would not have been serviceable Well then if they would have been contented with this that the Church should have been subordinate to Scripture the quarrel would soon be ended What then Would they have the Scripture subordinate to the Church Adieone pudorem cum pudicitia perdiderunt So he saies The Church was by St. Paul called the pillar and ground of truth without subordination to Scripture as then not written Ans Will they hold themselves to this that what is not said in Scripture in terms is not to be construed as the sense of the Scripture If they will then what will become of their points of difference as to Scripture If they will not then this distinction is not to be rejected upon that account because it is not said so there But secondly His reason because Scripture then was not written is to be examined If he understands it absolutely it is false Was not the Old Testament then written And if the Romanist fetcheth his Monarchy of the Church from the Anaology to the Jewish High Priest why should not the Old Scripture be sufficient to subordinate the Church And if the Scripture was then sufficient as St. Paul saies to make wise unto Salvation before the Canon was finished was it not able to bear the Churches dependance upon it And is it not as able now when the Canon is compleated As to the times of the Church before any part of Scripture was written we have several times spoken before Put it into a Syllogism thus That which God speaks we are bound to believe upon account of his veracity That which the Church speaks to us God speaks therefore Now as to the major whosoever denies it is interpretative an Atheist The assumption then is that we stick at though the Roman accounts us for this not Christians The times of the Church before any part of Scripture was written were chiefly those wherein that proposition was consented to and yet not by all that knew the doctrine of the Church Therefore those who then did believe had not only a Faith disposing them to believe that what God saies is true For this is said by Aristotle in effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is a proposition of reason that what God saies is true but they had a divine Faith habituating them to the belief that that which was spoken by the Church was truly communicated to the Church from God Now here the hinge turns whether their Faith terminated upon the Church as the subjectum quo or upon the matter delivered by the Church as the subjectum quod We deny the former because divine Faith cannot rise upon humane testimony therefore Faith could not be caused by such a testimony which is humane without a Revelation from God that what the Church did speak it did speak from God Therefore the church had it self then towards Faith as proposing the matter not as resolving the assurance And can we not then as well be now assured that what the Scripture doth propose is the Word of God as what the Church proposed then was the Word of God And so Faith must at length not only cause us to believe that what God saies is true but also to believe that God hath said this therefore He likes not then my reason for the subordination of the Church to Scripture not for the reason against which other reasons will soon be found Ans This will require a very good intention but thus he is pleased to put off my discourse Bellarmin proves his propositions by Scripture by reason by Fathers Therefore he makes his heads of proof and holds of Faith And another would say that my Adversaries were beaten out of all their holds He saies to my reason here against it other reasons will soon be found when they are found we shall find answers Let them tell me from whom the Church hath its authority They will say from Christ Well he is supposed the Author But where is the Instrument and Patent for our knowledge that Christ hath passed such a grant The Church saith it they will say
sense 4. The end of Pastours then was the end of Pastours now to be preserved by infallibility of Pastours then was not the end of Pastours then therefore not now The major is true by them because they apply those words to these times of the Church the minor is also true by them because there was not by their own confession Councils held for the first three hundred yeares The assistance therefore is not such as preserves from all errour And lastly if we were to be preserved from errour by the unanimous doctrine of those Doctours and Pastours we should never be secured from errour unless in those points wherein we agree N. 32. In this number he brings Es 59.20.1 Compared with the 11. ch to the Rom. 26. ver Ans These Texts neither disjunctively nor conjunctively are sufficient for his intendment That of Esay is plainly intended for the last conversion of the Jew which is not like to be made by Roman meanes as Sr. Edwin Sandys notes in his Survey of the westerne Churches And as for those wordes my words which I have put into thy mouth are free from errour in all points great and small yes we grant it This doth not contradict us but they are to prove that whatsoever they say God puts into their mouth Again it respects the Church as invisible and that conceit of his that it cannot be so taken because it speaks of the words not departing out of the mouth is not solid for the use of the mouth may be there for confession of the faith as Rom. 10.10 with the mouth confession is made to God Now this respects not the visible Church as teaching but the invisible as expressing the faith of the heart by the confession of the mouth But he again Gods spirit or word is not in a mouâ—h teaching errour Ans This is a Sophism it is true in sensu composito and as teaching errour but it is not true in sensu diviso Gods spirit may be in one at one time teaching truth in another time not teaching or teaching not truth He may be in some directing sufficiently to salvation not sufficiently against all errour not that the Spirit of God is in any teaching errour operatively for whatsoever it is he is operative to in point of beliefe is truth but in whom he may be sometimes as teaching truth he is sometimes not when they teach errour For this si yet to be proved by them that whatsoever is taught in the Church is suggested and dictated by the Spirit Afterwards he taxeth me for taxing any of coming near to blasphemy for saying God did speak to us and teach us by his Church which he saies here is refuted my words shall not depart out of thy mouth Ans I said not so That which I said I have answered upon the place I do not not deny absolutly that God speakes by his Church but I deny that he speaks now by his Church absolutely God may speak by his Church that which is infallible and yet not speak by his Church now infallibly That which is infallible in the principles of Scripture not infallibly in the manner of deduction If he did speak allwaies and allwaies infallibly there were no more to be said until that be proved we say much is supposed N. 33. If it were lawfull I might smile at his discourse in this number out of the next ch in Esay and the next to that For these chapters do plainly regard the Church as invisible in order to salvation which is properly applied to the Church as such and this is more then truth for it is possible for a man not to have any errrour and yet not to come to Salvation and it is I hope possible for a man to come to Salvation and yet to have some errours But that this should be said of the Roman Church and that that should teach all Nations I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was not the Church of Ierusalem and the Church of Antioch before them Nay it will not be easily proved by them that they were Christians in a formed Church before us We may as well say that the multitude of the Isles shall be glad thereof and that all Nations and Kingdomes which shall not serve thee shall perish should be meant of the Church of Rome is as likely as that the Bishop of Rome should be Emperour of the world as they pretend him Monarch of the Church It was never true surely but then when the Emperours held the Popes stirrup and the Duke was throwen under the Table Or it was then true when the Pope was the Sun and Emperour the Moon Or it shall then be true when the Sun riseth in the west But it should not be true of Rome me thinks because it is said the dayes of thy mourning shall be ended And surely they have been since the prophecy sometimes in mourning and at least shall be by their own acknowledgment in the time of Anti-Christ And that this should be meant of the Church as visible because it is said thou shalt be called Sought out is a slight ratiocination Rather the contrary because God seeks it out therefore it is not visible Because it is called Hephtziba my delight is in her therefore visible Yea rather the contrary for Gods delight is with the Church invisible because when his delight is with the Church visible it is in order to the Church invisible Because the land shall be called Beulah Ch. 62 ver 4 therefore it should be the Church visible rather the contrary for the real union which is mystical of Christ with his Church is to be understood of the Church invisible And that she should be to Gods comfort namely the visible and the Roman Church rather the contrary she is certainly less to his comfort because she saies so These promises are made primarily to the Church as invisible which should be gathered cheifely out of the Gentiles in general therefore let them again remember that of St. Ierom in his Epistle to Evagrius Orbis maior est Urbe But he helpeth us with an argument If this Church should at any time fall to teach errour Nations should do well to further their Salvation by forsaking her erring as the Protestants say they did This we take for the maior and we assume but this Church hath erred as hath been sufficiently shewed in the discourse of others and competently in this therefore are we justified by my adversaries And amongst the errours quod loquitur inde est that she cannot erre N. 34. In this he obtrudes again that of Dan. 2.44 And they must be meant he thinks of the Church of the Church visible of the visible Roman Church certaintly it was well said by the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we may go near to English thus modesty is unprofitable to him that beggs the question That it is meant of the Kingdome of Christ in his Church we
for the dead all inscriptions of graves all wills and testaments all foundations of pious places will testifie this custome farre more strongly then that of Baptisme yea in no one countrey nor in any one age since Christ untill this last following age did ever any one man deny praying for the dead except Aerius counted for this his opinion an Heretick by St. Austin and by St. Epiphanius as you know very well Hence it is made evidently credible to any learned man that this Tradition of baptizing Infants and much more the Tradition of praying for the dead came to us from the Apostles it not being possible for all true believers in so many severall countries and so many severall ages to agree in the profession and daily practice of this truth without they had received these two things joyntly with their first faith else the novelty and the authors of such a novelty would in some time or some place have been made known to posterity for no one mans worke was it no nor no one hundred mens worke to bring all men every where to any such novelty with so unanimous and no where contradicted consent The Ignorant people will have the truth of these Traditions also made evidently credible unto them by the publick unanimous and universal consent of all antient men and all Ancient Monuments and also the like unanimous affirmation of all learned men of any standing who will all and every where profess themselves assured of it by their Learning and certain knowledge of those Traditions proved in the manner I now said This maketh the matter evidently credible to the ignorant Wherefore they should do most imprudently not to believe that these points came from the Apostles and then supposing that they came from them they should do a damnable sin not to believe them Can any rationall man desire a more rational proceeding How many true believers commended in Scripture cannot give so prudent a reason for what they believed How we proceeding thus escape clearly all Circle I told you the last Chapter Numb 31.32 Now as you must grant that our Church submitted unto as infallible presently by her authority decides all controversies so her Traditions once acknowledged as infallible will decide the points questioned The Scripture never so clear can never decide any one controversie untill it be first acknowledged Thus you see the two things which you here desired to see 17. After this I passed to another quality which the Church hath and the Bible hath not though it be a quality primely necessary to decide all controversies whence it appeareth that God intended not the Bible but the Church to be our judge This quality is that the Church is a living judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time and who can heare me and you and be heard by me you so manifestly that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we do doubt we can propose our doubts and she will explicate her meaning Such a living judge as this we must have to put effectually an End to all Controversies that can arise And as for the Bible I have shewed that it doth not decide all points necessary to Salvation the Bible heareth not new Controversies arising as I prove by this clear example An Arrian staâ—â—eth up as really he did and saith that these words of the Scripture These three are one are words added by us to the true Scripture This Controversie and a thousand such like the Bible heareth not the Bible judgeth not for there is not a word of it in all the Bible And though you say you can see true Scripture by its light you shall never get any man to believe that you your selfe do really believe that you see every verse in Scripture by its light No light appeareth so dimm as these words appear to man Three are one Yet besides this light you who reject Church Tradition as fallible you I say have left you no other infallible ground nor any infallible meanes to convince the Arrian untill you hold the Church infallible All other use which you say you make of the Church sufficeth not to ground an infallible assent for when all comes to all you make any private man and consequently every Arrian Cobler as I shewed the last Court of Judicature in giving the finall sentence on which all depends For he must be the last judge who after the Churches judgement must give sentence that she hath or hath not judged against Scripture That you may see my argument is not peccant I will frame both the Premisses and the Conclusion thus Faith being an infallible assent Controversies concerning faith cannot be determined so as to end then effectually but by an infallible living judge who can heare you and me and be heard by you and me But no other then the Church can with any ground be held to be this living judge Therefore She must be held to be this judge I doe not without Reason put in my Premisses the terme of infallible for faith being an infallible assent must needs require an infallible authority to rest upon This Authority she must find in all points to which she is bound to give this assent But she is bound to give this assent to diverse points not proposed clearly in Scripture as I shewed the last Chapter Therefore she is bound to give this assent to diverse of those points onely because they are proposed by the Church to which she could not possibly be bound to give an infallible assent without due assurance of her infallibility 48 You object that the Church Traditions cannot hear you and me I answer that it is the Church who proposeth these Traditions and not the Traditions which are our judge you ask me whither an Heretike be not condemned by himselfe as Saint Paul saith and you interpret his saying so that he must needs be condemned by himselfe for no other reason but because he had in him the principles of the word of God which he gain-said by his contrary error and so he was condemned thereby and therefore that can Judge Sir he is not an Heretike but an infidel who is told by his own Conscience that he gain-saith the Scripture All christians are readier to die then to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture When St. Paul writ those words the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written and until the whole Canon was written your own Doctors grant the Church to have ben the infallible judge of Controversies And I wonder you should say the Church at the writing of this by St. Paul was not sufficiently formed which the same St. Paul testifieth to have been formed before his conversion accusing himselfe for having above measure persecuted the Church of God And before his conversion the Number of the disciples was multiplied Act. 6. yea Act. 8. Simon Magus was turned Heretick before St. Paul was turned
Christian or any word of the new Scripture was writen The meaning of St. Paul is that an Heretick might if he would clearly see his private doctrine to be opposite to the known publick Doctrine of the Church which Church then shined with the glory of infinite Miracles stupendious conversions and most eminent Sanctity and was then formed most completely with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith Yea you will say she was then more completely furnished to that end then ever she was since that time 49. Now because your cheif exception against the Churches being our judge is that you hold her not infallible besides all the proofs I have already brought of her infallibility I shall now add divers more But in the first place I must a little more fully tell you what we understand by the name of the Church He who is a seeker of his Religion must first believe the Universal Church diffused to be furnished by God with true infallible meanes to direct us securely in all doubts of faith wherefore he most prudently judgeth himselfe bound to joyne himselfe to her in faith being convinced that she directed most securely in faith Being thus also a seeker resolved to ioyne to these true believers When he proceedeth further to take a particular account in whom this infallible meanes given to the Church Universal of directing all securely in matters of faith doth consist he will readily find that it doth not consist in all the members of the Universal Church for Children and women be of the Church and yet their Vote in no mans opinion is required to the deciding any controversie in faith the Laiety also hath no decisive Voice in those points nor every inferiour Clergy man but only such as are Prelates Overseers and Governors over the rest So that in fine this infallible direction is Unanimously affirmed by us all to be undoubtedly settled upon the authority of the prime Pastors Prelats of the Church assembled together in a lawfull generall Councell with their cheife Pastor and Head the Bishop of Rome Against a thing so easily to be understood you cry out aloud of strange intricatenesse and inextricable proceedings And yet I think most clowns of this Land did easily understand what was meant by a decree of the Kingdome to the which the consent of King and Kingdome assembled in Parliament as the custome was for many years together was required Now what more difficulty is there to know what we meane by a decree or Definition of the Church The kingdome representative was the king and the Parliament The Church representative is the cheife Bishop with the full Assembly of the other Bishops in a lawful Council the Decrees and definitions of which assembly be the decrees and definition of the Church In a thing so cleare you labour your uttermost to raise a thick mist 50. First you obiect who can be certain by a divine faith of the lawfulnes and Regularity of a Pope in his first creation I answer that when I speake of a Pope defining in a lawfull Councel as I do now speak I speak of such a Pope to whom the Church submitted in calling the Councel and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful head to preside in the Councel These very acts supply all defects in his election and do make it evidently credible that he is the true head who thus admitted defined with the Councel as their acknowledged head Secondly you ask when there was Pope against Pope who of the people could distinguish the right Pope I answer that he shall ever be esteemed the right Pope to whom the Prelates of the Church shall unanimously obey when he calleth them to meet in a general Councel and in this Councel to preside over them To to have two such Popes as these are at one time is impossible And this is the only time in which a Pope defineth with a lawful Councel What you say of Popes not defining in such a Councel is not our Case put me a Pope defining with a lawful Councel and then prove him fallible if you can Whether the Popes definitions out of a Councel be fallible or infallible maketh nothing to this purpose Only this is evident if they be infallible out of a Councel they be infallible in a Councel Thirdly you think that no Controversies can in our opinion be decided when there is a doubt who is true Pope And you ask who is then to call a Councel And when the Councel is called you think us to think that this Councel can define nothing without a Pope I doubt not Sir but you have found a clear answer to all this in Bellarm lib. 2. de Concilis Chap. 19. that although a Councel without a Pope cannot define any article of faith yet in time of schisme it can judge which is true Pope and provide the Church of a true Pastor if she had none who thus provided by the Councels authority may dissolve the Councel if he pleaseth or if he please to have them remaine assembled they remaine so now by his authority and can define as well as other Councels called by the Pope In that meeting in which the Pope was to be chosen or declared the undoubted Pope the Prelats of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves Fourthly you ask how we can by divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulnes and generality of Councels for Councels have been called by Emperours not by Popes Sir your Church which never had nor shall have generall Councel is to seeke in all things belonging to them Our Church almost in every age since Constantine hath been visibly assembled in general Councels and by perpetual practice hath been sufficiently informed to deliver by the assistance of the Holy Ghost all that she hath received from her ancestors to be essential to a true Councel and to deliver this point infallibly To your obiection in order I answer first That it is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institution by which either Emperours be assured to be still found in the world or that when they have that dignity they be by divine institution invested with a power to call Councels We seek for this divine Institution This we will not admit until it can be shewed in Scripture or Tradition the fact of calling sheweth not divine Institution Secondly as for the Prelates of the Church we can shew divine Institution Act. 20.28 Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock to feed or govern the Church of God And 4. Epho Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ that henceforth we may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine c. Thirdly The Emperour is not by divine Institution Lord of the Christian world No nor of any considerable part
that it is not argumentative to others And therefore as to the question about the sufficiency of Scripture Mr. Hooker says that this is to be supposed that the Scriptures are the word of God And notwithstanding he thinks this is not to be proved by it self yet in his first book 34. p. he speaks enough in that he says the Scriptures do sufficiently direct us to salvation And he quotes for it Sotus in the margent And if it sufficiently directs us to salvation then must it be sufficiently clear of it self that it is the word of God for otherwise the principal point unto salvation must be known otherwise And if they think to argue well that we must have all faith from the authority of the Church because we have the faith of the Scriptures from the Authority of the Church we may as well conclude that since we have sufficient direction to salvation from the Scripture we are also sufficiently directed to this main point of faith from the Scripture that the Scripture is the word of God Yea more the Scripture doth give better evidence of it self to be the word of God than the Church can give testimony of it self to be infallible because the Church as such in religion is a non ens without Scripture in the substance of it But to make an end of this exception against me in varying from others this is the common Protestant principle or else Stapleton was decieved who makes account that every one of us ad unum do hold the Scripture to be known per se et sua quadam luce propria In Analsiy principionem Therefore if the question be how we are privately assured ultimately that the Scripture is the word of God we say with Stapleton that we are assured hereof by the testimony of the Spirit if the question be how we prove it to others to be the word of God we can for extrinsecall proof make use with Mr. Chillingworth of universal tradition His exception then against our private assurance of the Scripture to be the word of God in his following words comes to nothing for we need not from what we have said say that the assent of faith is evident as to an object of sense but yet the assent may be more firm and certain The formall object of faith is inevident yet may we more fastly hold to what we believe than to what we see because what we see depends upon our fallible sense but what we believe hath an infallible ground namely the word of God that this is his word For this ultimately must settle our personall faith or else we have no faith of proper name which is infallibly grounded All believe that what God says is true but if to the question whether God says this God cannot bring his own testimony there can be no authentick ground of Religion in subjecto And those therefore who would not have died to bear witness to a thing of sense have died to bear testimony to the Christian Religion and also have died for it assuredly ex vi habitus by the power of the habit of faith not ex vi traditionis by the credibility of the Church And as to that which he takes â—â—â—tice of that I acknowledge a greater necessity of such a Church to declare by infallible authority which books be the true word of God which not than to declare any other point I answer that it is not very ingenuously taken here by him what I said for I spake by way of supposition that it would not follow if the Church were infallible as to propose or tax and consign Canonical books as Stapleton speaks yet that we had need of the Church infallibly to propose every other point of faith He it seems took positively what was spoken upon supposition Every thing which is given in discourse is not granted to him but this he refers to num 43. For the ending then of this Paragraph and sufficiently for the Controversie upon the whole matter it remains that the Scripture must be credible for it self or else the Church Not the Church that must be known by the Scriptures as before therefore those texts by which the Church is proved in the truth and infallibility must be worthy to be believed for themselves or not if so then why not other parts of Scripture and so we have our purpose if not then are we in a circle and must beg the question and never be satisfied Num. 22. Here another argument is drawn against me from the effect negatively which in the kind of it doth not conclude A non esse ad non posse non valet And we may as well argue that some have this way attained faith therefore this is the way however the possibility proceeds from the effect to 〈◊〉 but it doth not proceed against a possibility from the deniall of it to some Because Pighius and Hermannus have not found assurance this way therefore this is not the way for finall assurance is inconsequent Secondly the cause of non-assurance thus doth not arise from the defect in Scripture which Stapleton says and some others is true and holy and authentick but God doth not give by his Spirit faith to all All men have not faith as the Apostle as commonly we expound it and though they are said to believe in the sense of the Church because they professe the Christian Religion yet by an internall act of faith many not Thirdly neither are we bound to maintain this proposition of theirs Facienti quod in se est datur gratia ex congruo and therefore if upon the use of means they have not this Divine faith infused it is no prejudice to our cause for not onely gifts are gratiae gratis datae but also the gratiae gratum facientes are also freely given and therefore is their distinction by the way faultie And therefore if there be many millions which is yet more than he could know who can truly and sincerely protest before God and take it upon their salvation that they are wholly unable by the reading these books to come to an infallible assurance that this is Gods word This inferrs nothing of moment against us because although we have not ordinarily the effect without the means yet because we use the meanes therefore necessarily we shall have the effect doth not follow if the graces of God be free Yea fourthly those millions he means are of their Church we may suppose and they we may think are instructed to find no resolution but in their own way by the proposall of the Church So that as St. Paul says Rom. 10.3 of the Jews that they going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God so also may we say of these that they going about to establish the authority of the Church in this point have not submitted themselves to the authority of God Yea fifthly and lastly to be even