body move it hath the soul in it be its motion never so little or of so short continuance 3. Faith is before Charity and that not only by priority of nature but of agency or activity Faith is a leading grace Men first believe to righteousness and then make confession to Salvation Faith first apprehends and lays hold on the mercy and goodness of God in the promise and then for that his goodness and mercy towards us we do love him and keep his Commandments This is clearly taught by our Saviour Luke 7.47 as Salmeron Tolet Stella and others even Papists acknowledg Now in Nature the Soul precedes the body in its activity 4. If charity and good works were the soul of faith they should be intrinsecal to faith for the form is not out of the matter nor the soul out of the body but so they are not Hence 't is that some learned men call charity an external form of faith and other virtues and by spirit in the Text they understand the breath making the sence this Even as the want of breath argues a dead body so the want of works a dead faith Estius ascribes this Exposition to Cajetan Estius in Jam. 2.26 who as he saith was moved to it by this reason because works are not the form of faith but certain concomitant effects but the soul is the form of the body Azorius clearly adheres to Cajetan Azor. instit Moral lib. 9. c. 3. q. 6. denying charity to be an intrinsecal form of faith or other virtues because they have their proper fruit and produce works without charity only he calls it an extrinsecal form which will never prove it to be the soul of them Par. in loc Pareus doth well observe for this purpose that it 's not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not without soul but without spirit or breath Bernard speaks most suitably to this Exposition Sicut corporis vitam c. As we know the life of the body by motion so the life of faith by good works If this Exposition please not I shall commend to you that acute one of Mr Perkins saith he Perkins on Galat. 5.6 Here is a false composition of the words Faith that is without works is dead is true but to say Faith is dead without works as though they gave life to faith is false To conclude Though we deny charity or good works to be the enlivening soul of faith yet we assert them to be the inseparable concomitants of a true faith so that as good works cannot be without faith so neither can faith be without good works As faith looks towards the promise by beleeving it so doth it reflect upon the Will of God by obeying it these are its two vital acts that is internal this is faith's external act neither of which can a living faith not exercise CHAP. IV. Of the Churches Power and Infallibility in matters of Faith IN this Chapter you come to the Churches Infallibility as a main part of Religion and a leading Article in the Creed to whom you are so liberal that you leave little to Christ or his Father It 's the observation of one of your own men that throughout your Ladies Psalter the Name of God is changed into the Name of our Lady so the Name of God into the name of Church and the Attributes of God are predicated of the Church as here Infallibility answering herein the Apostles description of Antichrist That he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he is as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes 2.4 But to your Chapter You might have done well seeing the Church must come in first to have defined to us what Church it is you speak of before you tell us of her Infallibility as whether it be the Church virtual or representative or essential did I know which you meant I could speedilier answer you but seeing I do not I shall shew the fallibility of each of them lest I should happen to miss of you 1. Then Infallibility is not a Jewel annexed to your Popes Crown Lyra commenting on the words of Christ Mat. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Lyran. ibid. A verâ fide subvertendo-scil saith Ex quo patet c. Whereby it is evident that this Church which hath this promise doth not consist in men of ecclesiastical or secular power or dignity because many Princes and Popes summi pontifices and others inferior have been found to apostatize from the Faith wherefore it consists in those persons in whom is true knowledg and confession of faith and truth Some of your Popes have been deposed for Heresie as Eugenius by the general Council of Basil Concil Basil Ses 34. apud Binnium Hart Answ to Reynolds p. 246. Honorius by the sixt general Council was condemned and that justly saith Hart in his Answer to learned Reynolds Innocentius was little better then an Heretique who held that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for children Nor was he alone in this Heresie for it continued in the Church 600 years as Maldonat observes Maldon in Joan 6. Concil Trid. ses 21. Can. 4 ap Bin. Now that it was an Heresie appears by the Curse laid upon it in the Councel of Trent If you say the Pope taught it not I answer How then durst the Church believe it and for so long a time whereas the faith of the members must be conformable to the belief of the Churches Head Or why did not the Pope hinder it when he saw it was believed in the Church as a necessary truth It cannot be imagined how the Pope should be free when the Church was so infected 2. Infallibility is not the inseparable Priviledg of the Church representative or a General Councel for according to Papists it hath no infallibility in it self but depends upon the infallibility of the Pope which I have shewed to be a Chimaera Azorius tells us Azor. iustit Moral part 2. l. 5. c. 12. q. 1. that it 's agreed upon by all Catholikes that a General Councel may err in faith and manners if it be not called and confirmed by the Authority of the Pope of Rome And he instances in the Council of Ariminum of 600 Bishops who erred with Arius The Council of Constantinople of 300 Bishops who erred with Leo the Emperor This is the meaning of Lorinus as I conceive Lorin in Act. 15.7 p. 583. Col. 2. when he saith Wise or learned men are to be consulted with but all the infallibility is in him alone Now let any Papist shew any reason why in a Council the Pope should be infallible and out of it should be as other men But Councils called and confirmed by Popes have with Papists themselves been accounted fallible The Council of Basil was called by Eugenius and had the
Durand Scotus Gabriel and Almain for concluding that the authority of the Church is the reason of our belief of the things of Faith 2. From immediate inspiration of the Spirit Thus the Apostles were immediately inspired so that in their delivering of the truth they could neither fallere nec falli neither deceive nor be deceived this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 The later of whom perswades us to give heed to the word of God because the holy pen-men of it were inspired by the H. Ghost Again for power which you leave unexplained it may be observed that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belonging to Christ 1. Authoritative which is his designation or appointment hereunto this may be understood by that text you cite As my Father sent me c. 2. Qualitative or dispositive this is Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one is his power the other his authority Again this power is exercised two wayes 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him Thus it s said All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you Joh. 15.15 This is his outward teaching 2. By commanding the heart to believe and consent to those truths he reveals this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal 110. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth by stamping upon it a divine authority Majesty and withall by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it This way doth Christ exercise his power in bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures as the rule of its belief 2. I proceed now to your consequence He having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians Ans 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother or give other Churches liberty to claim equal priviledges with her whilst you talk of Churches you neglect construction and come in with a She may challenge 2. 'T is false that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them For 1. There is no need of another rule for them the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christians and fully sufficient and perfect as your self confess If that Christs teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule i. e. be a compleat and perfect rule what needs another rule or can this other rule be higher then that which hath its full height or have greater extent then that which is perfect the perfection of Christs rule shews that nothing can be added to it If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians but not for after Christians I desire to know the ground of this distinction for I am ignorant of it 2. The succeeding Church hath not communicated to her the same knowledg and power that Christ had her knowledg is not universal there hath been in every Age since your Churches Apostacy an addition of supposed truths which the former Age believed not Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds as necessary to be believed unto Salvation which formerly were not so imposed if once thought of sure then the Church before the Trent Council either knew not the whole revealed will of God and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief or you propound a larger object then Faith will well admit Again her knowledg is not infallible as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed Besides this it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before the same may be said of power it s not the same with Christ they want both his power and authority as I have explained them Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach be the same that Jesus Christ and his Apostles preached and taught then it is a rule of Faith to us but thus it s not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule but its identity with the Scriptures the marrow of Christs and the Apostles preaching Thus the assertion is true otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule as I have already shewed and this is my Antagonists meaning as appears by his next words All matters of Faith as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account c. 2. Consequence or rather the first consequence arising from that is in these words Whence it follows pag. 13. that all matters of belief as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit Ans 1. If by other points you understand other points of Faith then are contained in Scripture you take that for granted which is notoriously false viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures containe not and consequently that they are imperfect and insufficient to be a rule of Faith and this is most false For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them that was all contained in Scripture and more was not imposed as necessary to be believed to Salvation I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more then Scripture even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions but as it contains more then Scripture so is it much larger then any Creed that was used before it so that either their Faith was imperfect having an imperfect foundation or yours is redundant transgresseing the bounds of a right and ancient rule 2. The Scriptures testifie their own sufficiency 2 Tim. 3.15 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts Act 26.22 with chap. 20.27 Lyran. He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation and yet preached nothing but what the Scriptures did contain Ans 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that other fundamental points besides this The Scriptures are the word of God are the truths of God and to be believed meerly because the Church asserts it so that the Churches affirmation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths as I suppose you mean this I deny For 1. The Scriptures contain in themselves arguments that may convince a true Christian that they are the Word of God Many notes are given by Protestants which to you pulling them in pieces and viewing them singly seem weak which conjunctim or all together have
much strength in them He that reads the Scriptures with a spiritually enlightened mind cannot but confess that never meer man spake like the Holy Writers and that flesh and blood revealed not those things to them which they declare but God only 2. Upon what account was this truth taken up by the first Christians for the space of three hundred years after Christ they could not take it up upon the Churches account and credit for your Authors hold that its only in the power of Oecumenical Sinods to define which are the Scriptures and for this time there was no such a Sinod called The first Sinod that I finde delivering the Canon of Scripture was that of Laodicea held about the year 364. Afterwards the third Council of Carthage both Provincial Sinods only though afterwards confirmed in a General Council 3. Upon what account or credit doth your Church take up this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God Sure you are so great an Enemy to Spiritists that you will not think of extraordinary Revelations or Enthusiasms I hardly think that ever the Holy Ghost fell upon your Popes or Councils in fiery Tongues or that they had either visions or dreams nor do I think that you will say that your Church propoundeth the Canon of Scripture meerly upon the supposal of former practise that former Churches did allow and believe the Scriptures now received are Canonical for this is only a testimony concerning matter of fact in which 't is confessed the Pope may erre through wrong informations There may be spurious Canons foisted into former Councils like Pope Zozimus Canon of the Nicene Council whereby he maintained his Supremacy I therefore suppose that your judgment must be that your Church assisted by the Spirit doth from internal notes of Scripture conclude the divine authority thereof Hence 't is that Councils proceed by argument and reason and there is an acknowledgment of the truth before they proceed to definition or Decree Now if the Church take up Scripture upon this account that she through the assistance of Gods Spirit discerns the notes and marks of Gods Word why may not a Christian by the same assistance discover these notes and so believe that the Scriptures are Gods Word upon the same account that the Church takes up this beliefe though withal he doth and ought to reverence and highly account of the judgment of the Church or Pastors of it as that which hath a Priority and is an occasion of Christians private judgment and a confirmation of it yet as I hinted before it must not be denied that Christians have a divine light in themselves being taught of God Joh. 6.45 which is for the discovery of divine objects as natural light or reason is for the discovery of natural This Bellarmine confesseth saying Bellar. de lumine fid Conc. 1. Quemadmodum omnes homines c. As all men are indued with a certain natural light whereby they understand the first principles to be true without labour without arguments nor is there any that demands reasons and arguments when those principles are propounded So also all Christians enlightened by God with a certain divine and supernatural light do acknowledg the first principles of our Faith though difficult and exceeding reason to be most true Origen in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he proves the Divinity of Scriptures by divers arguments Origen lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. as Protestants do hath a notable speech to this purpose Si quis cum omni judicio c. If any one doth judiciously and with that reverence that is meet consider of the Sacred Writ while he reads and diligently searcheth into it most certainly having his minde and senses affected with some divine inspiration he acknowledgeth that the word he reads is not the word of men but of God and of himselfe perceives ex semetipso sentiet that these books are written not by humane art or mortal eloquence but by the hand of God Thus I suppose it was with the first Christians of whom you cannot say that they believed the books of Scripture to be the Word of God meerly because the Apostles and others held them they were so but upon other account this overthrows your Position What I have said of the Scriptures may be said of other points of Faith that they are not taken up meerly or mainly upon the Churches credit and account but rather because God hath revealed them in his Word wherein they are therefore written that we might have a sure argument for our Faith But I come to your next inference 2 Consequence or Conclusion Whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of faith Magna Diana Romanorum Great is your Roman Goddess but its only with the Shrine-makers of Rome your conclusion is very high but notoriously false For 1. It s not the Churches definition that makes any book Apocriphal but the want of divine inspiration in those who wrote them so that whatsoever is not written by the Prophets or Apostles the Subjects of divine inspiration that is certainly Apocriphal whether the Church receive them or not Hence many of your learned men reject those books as Apocriphal which the Council of Trent declared to be Canonical the Apostle saith All Scripture is by divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 the Scriptures of the Old Testament are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.19 read Luke 24.27 2. It was six hundred years after Christ before any General Council delivers the Canon of Scripture now will you say that till that time the books of Scripture were Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith 3. The Spirit of God may work Faith in the Soule while it is reverently reading the Word of God without the testimony of the Church the person for the present being ignorant what the Church teacheth of particular points this is clear by the place of Origen even now mentioned Lyranus speaks of a teaching of the Spirit Lyran. in 1 Joh. 2.27 Vbi deficit humana Doctrina 4. When the Thessalonians received the Apostles Doctrine not as the word of men but as the Word of God Greg. Analus fid lib. 1. c. 15. was this Doctrine no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Your Gregory of Valence confesseth Multa sunt c. There are many points of Christian Doctrine which of themselves can procure to themselves credit and authority Lastly the Greek Church with the reformed Churches receive all the Articles of the Apostles Creed because consonant to Gods Word not because delivered by your Roman Diana are those Articles therefore to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Sure you cannot be so impudent as to assert it though we know Jesuitical impudency is not little For your Scriptures Sect. 2. When I see them reduced to arguments I shall
written in heaven stedfast ones hear saith he and acknowledg that this Church in the Apostolical Epistles is called a foundation 3. In regard of the first Christians and Ministers not succeeding Churches unless in such regards as I shall shew hereafter the Apostle speaks in the Present tense The authoritie of the Primitive Church is greater then of the present Churches There is a clear testimonie and much to our present purpose in your Lovain Doctor Driedo Dried lib. de dogm variâ—s who acknowledges that the Primitive Church was of greater authoritie in teaching and delivering Doctrines of Faith then the present Church because of the Apostles qui â—cclsiae illius columneae Gersom de vita spirituali animae f. 61. R. who being Pillars of that Church were eye-witnesses of that which they taught Thus Gersom expounding that Speech of Augustine you much glory in non crederem Evangelio and I had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had compelled me thereto saith he taking Church there for the Primitive Congregation of the faithful who saw and heard Christ and were his witnesses Suppose we grant this Church was the Pillar and ground of Truth in your sense what would your present Apostatized Roman Church gaine by hat Your Prelates are no such Pillars as the Atostles nor your Church such a foundation of truth as theirs Lastly supposing it were meant of the present Churches particularly of the Roman It 's being called the Pillar and ground of Truth doth not prove it's infallibilitie James Cephas Gal. 2.9 and John were Pillars yet who would infer from thence that they were infallible Gersom is by one call'd Constantiensis Concilii columnam a Pillar of the Council of Constance yet he was not thought infallible All that can be proved from these titles is this that God makes use of the Church both Pastors and faithful people according to their places to hold forth and preserve the truth which is accomplishhd in every particular Church so long as it continues a true Church of Christ but this doth not exempt it from ceasing to be a true Church or from erring Thus it may truly be said of the Churches of Asia and of Rome that while they continued true Churches of Christ they held forth and preserved Gods truth but neither this nor those were exempt from erring Adam in the state of Innocencie might have been truly called the Pillar and ground of truth and goodness holiness and righteousness yet Adam was created with a posse errare a possibilitie of erring as we know by woful experience Your other text is Matth. 16. I answer 1. By Church we are to understand true Believers Augustine expounds this place by Matth. 7.24.25 Aug. de unit eccles c. 18. See Lyran These cannot be finally prevailed against by the Gates of Hell There will be a number of true Believers and these visible let the Devil and his Instruments do what they can 2. By Hell Gates the Fathers understand persecutions and sins and will you say that the members of the true Church cannot be persecuted nor tempted to sin the contrarie is undeniable 3. It s one thing for Hell Gates to wound us and cause us to shrink another thing to overcome us utterly our weakness lays us open to blows and wounds such weakness was in Peter and the rest of the Apostles who denied or forsook Christ such weakness was in your Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arian Heresie Though God doth alwayes strengthen his servants against total Apostacie 4. Tell me Sir suppose I had brought this place to prove the certainty of the Saints perseverance would you have been perswaded that they could not err so much as in the least truth or fall into the least sin 3. Arg. Your third Argument is taken from Christs promise of his presence Matth. 28. I am with you alwayos to the end of the world Ans 1. This promise is made to all the Apostles and their Successors Pag. 15. and therefore if it proved infallibilitie for any it would be for the Apostles Successors in other Churches as well as Rome which is not harmonious musick to Popish ears 2. It s made to the Successors of the Apostles as imployed about the ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing and therefore if it proved infallibilitie the Pope must part with a priviledg you ascribe only to him 3. What is more promised here then Joh. 14.23 where Christ promiseth his presence and abode with private Christians even such as love him and keep his word whom you account not unerrable 4. There are three things contained in this promise a threefold effect of Christs presence with the successes of the Apostles 1. His special support and assistance for the discharge of their duties Thus Chrysostome saith Quia magna eis injunxerat c because he had laid a great task upon them to comfort them he saith Chrysost Hom. 91. in Matth. Behold I am with you c. q. d. lest you should complain that your work is difficult I will be with you who make all things light 2. His protection of them that there shall never cease a Succession of Pastors in the Church to the end of the world Ephes 4.11.12.13.14 3. Ordinarie illumination and direction I say ordinarie to distinguish it from that extraordinarie illumination which the Apostles had and which was suitable for them by whom the Scriptures were written and the Churches first founded but is ceased with them so as Gods Timothies must give themselves to reading meditation c. which the Apostles were not tyed unto Hereupon your inferences fall to the ground in that you say Either Christ was not of power to keep his Church from strayings or that he wanted fidelity to make good his word Christs power is larger then his will or promise and therefore sufficient to perform what he promised Nor is there any defect in his fidelitie whatsoever he hath promised he will perform it to his Church but he never promised her inerrabilitie she is not therefore to expect it from him 4. Arg. Your fourth Argument is in these words The certaintie Divine Faith requires to be built on is a further evidence of the Churches infallibilitie ibid. for how is it possible Faith can be certain if the Church that is to ascertain it be uncertain and fallible The Argument is reducible to this form That which Divine Faith doth build upon must be certain and infallible else Faith it self could not be certain but it 's the Church that â—ivine Faith doth build upon therefore the Church must be certain and infallible Your major I easily grant but deny your minor Proposition which being only questionable you should have brought some proof for it as well as for the other which no man doubts of but it hath been observed to be the practise of Jesuites Probare concessa leviter pertransire dubitata whom you are pleased to imitate
by this means being of several Nations Ps 11. different tempers and interests Luk. 24. neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves or posteritie with a lie Which may be reduced to this Syllogism If the Church be composed of men of several Nations different tempers and interests then it 's infallible but it is so composed c. therefore infallible A. To your minor I shall onlie say that if I were not otherwayes perswaded to believe it then by your proofs of it which are to be sought like a Needle in a Bottle of Hey I should doubt of the truth of it Sure you intended your proofs for your Romish Catholiques who you know read not Scripture But what needs all this ado this sensless urging of holy Scripture to prove that the Church is composed of men men of several Nations different tempers and interests But leaving this for your bruitish admirers to ruminate on I deny the consequence of your Major Proposition which is this That society that is framed and made up of men dispersed and spread over the world c. is infallible What Schoolboy that knows what infallibilitie is would assent to this Who knows not that Herod and Pontius Pilate the Jews and Romans men of several Nations of different tempers and interests yet conspired in resisting the Gospel and crucifying of Christ Are not the Mahometans men of several Nations yea more then true Christians possess different tempers and interests yet damnable erroneous What do you think of the 72. Interpreters Oyril Caled 3. pag 99. who were sent by Eleazer the Priest to Ptolemy to translate the Hebrew Text into Greek which they did without any discrepancie eirher in sense or words though kept asunder one from another Do you think they were infallible The Arian Church was composed of men dispersed over the world of different tempers and interests yet most dangerously erroneous Yet further when our Saviour suffered some of your Doctors say the Church was only in the blessed Virgin how would this your argument have proved the Churches infallibilitie at that time Your citation of Gen. 22. and Act. 1. and Ps 11. and Luk. 24. would have been to no purpose Once more shall not the Antichristian Church having these qualifications yet damnably err 2. Tell me what you understand by different tempers and interests Is it that some are godly some wicked some promoters of Christs interest some advancers of the Devils By your tempers mean you that some are hot others cold and a third sort lukewarm And by your different interests that some promote the Popes interest others the interest of Councils against the Pope This is your Churches composure but proves no infallibilitie 3. If the verie seeming contradictions in Scripture overthrow the Protestants Argument for its Divine Authoritie from its concent and harmonie which Vane in his late books labours to prove Why do not your real differences which Bellarmine declares to the world Vane's Lost Sheep p. 16. much more conclude against your infallibility But you seem to be sensible of the insufficient of your Argument and therefore before the end of your Section you flie to Gods assisting and strengthening of the Church whereby she becomes infallible But this I have answered before and avoid repetitions CHAP. V. Of the possibility of keeping the Commandments J Cannot but wonder what your method should be in this book and how this Chapter should come in next to the former When you had spoken so much of conformity of faith to the Church which you account as the first means of supernatural happiness what rational man but would have thought but that you should have said somthing of the conformity of hope to the Lords Prayer which you laid down as a second means and not have leapt to the third in such haste I could almost think that you are secretly proving adoration of that Roman Creature the Church of Rome for in your former Chapter you have been freeing her from Error here you free her from sin for if any be free from sin it must be the Roman Church And your next Chapter is about Religion or religious worship But seeing I have begun I will continue to follow you In this chapter you weave Penelope's Web what you say in the first and second Section you clearlie unsay in the third which will therefore help me in answering your former assertions You begin with exceeding confidence wondering that any can make question of the possibilitie of keeping the Commandments But the ground of this your confidence is misapplication of Scriptures as I shal through Gods assistance make it appear in my answers to you You urge Scripture examples and arguments The Scriptures you mainly urge are these Deut. 30. and Mat. 11.21 1 Deut. 30. They are not above but very neer us in our mouths and in our hearts to do them It s the Argument of your Donatists but makes not for you to prove possibilitie of perfect obedience that which it proves is the perspicuitie of the Law as to the Jews knowledg of it Vatab. Annot in Loc. That word which you render above is by Vatablus rendred Hid non est occultum à te It s not hidden from thee As if he should say to them you have no cause to plead ignorance of the Law seeing it s not hid from you but published to you being in your mouths i. e. in ore Levitarum c. in the mouths of the Levites who are of thy people that thou mayest receive from them those precepts that concern a good lâ—fe Id. ibid. and that they may teach them thee without delay This is more confirmed by his Marginal Note Praeciditur hic c. Here is cut off from the Jews all occasion of pleading their ignorance of the Law 2. These words do mainlie intend the words of Faith Rom. 10.8 i. e. the application of Christs righteousness to us by Faith Thus Lyranus explains it saying Lyran. Ostenditur c. Here is shewed the facility of that righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ which the Apostle opposeth to righteousness by the Law Phil. 3.9 Vatablus is verie clear in this point understanding it of that righteousness which is freely bestowed on Faith his words at large are these Si de sola lege c. If this were spoken only of the Law his argument were frivolous in that the Law of God is nothing easier to be done by being before our eyes then if it were far off Moses therefore in this Chapter as in the fourth doth commend unto the people Gods special good will as appears by that place of Paul Rom. 10 8. in bringing them under his tutorage which commendation could not be taken from the naked Law Nor doth it hinder that Moses preacheth of ordering their life according to the rule of the Law for the free righteousness of Faith hath the Spirit of regeneration accompanying it therefore one is
Tradition Hence it was that some Jesuits of Ratisbone asserted it to be an Article of Faith That Toby's dog wagged his tail and your self say page 65. All points of Faith being equally founded on Gods Revelation are fundamentall and substantiall which Revelation is by the Word or Tradition Now I conceive you will at least urge Tradition for Gods Predetermination and the Virgins impeccable or sinless Conception 2. The determination of your Church in some Councell or by some Pope Extrao Commun l. 3. tit 12. c. 2. apud Azor. part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. Bin Tom. 4. p. 743. Now it s most evident that Sixtus the Fourth did decree them Hereticks who affirmed the Virgin Mary to be conceived in sin Concil Trin. sess 5. Concil Basil sess 36. apud Bin. though I deny not but he also disallowed the preaching of her purity because of the too great zeal in the Preachers of it Upon this decree of Sixtus The Councell of Trent having declared the universality of Originall sin in regard of persons doth make a formall exception of the Virgin Mary But before either that Pope or Councell The Councell of Basil is most clear for it decreeing it to be A pious Doctrine and agreable to Ecclesiasticall worship the Catholick Faith right reason and the Holy Scriptures and that it shall not be lawfull for any one to preach or teach any thing contrary to it nor is the other point of lesser concernment than this 2. Those that hold the opinions of the Dominicans are by you counted Hereticks for the former opinion they are judged to make God the Author of sin with Florinus or being a force upon the will with Origen for these are the inferences you raise from our Doctrine of Predetermination nor are you more charitable to us in regard of the other opinion of the Virgins Conception See the above mentioned Constitutions of Sixtus the Fourth where he brands the Dominicans with Heresie now Heresie is a rejection not of a mere opinion but of a point of Faith 3. If they be onely School nicities why do your Priests so much instill at least the latter of them into simple peoples ears as a matter of Faith why do they injoyn the observation of an holy day for her immaculate Conception Why doe they indanger Christs honour by making his mother equall with him in impeccability and that by a School nicitie which if such might be well rejected Secondly you Answer It is as untrue that generall and approved Councells have contradicted one another in matters of Faith or oecumenicall Decrees they have indeed talked and discoursed contrary yea later Counsels have altered and changed Lawes and Constitutions of Government made and established by former but this only proves that Counsels admit a liberty and freedom to debate matters of Religion and that what was once good and convenient may prove afterwards circumstances varying bad and inconvenient which no way prejudiceth belief Reply 1. You speak something fearfully as if you were afraid to lie yet would not prejudice your Church by acknowledging the truth You say They have talked and discoursed contrary and that because They havâ— freedome to debate matters of Religion yet they do not contradict one another in matters of Faith Here is strange stuffe yet may well serve a credulous Papist But tell me if the determinations of former Councells be unalterable as to Religion as it must be if they be infallible How come later Councells to have a liberty to debate those matters which have formerly been determined or to discourse and talk contrary to them Is it because former Decrees are obscure or later Councels ignorant or that these later Councels meet oneâ—y to see who is the best disputant amongst them Nay rather according to truth is it not in order to the disquisition of truth and to a Decree contrary to former Decrees if they be found faulty this seems granted by a Councel which saith That the Church doth propound divers Concil Senen apud Bin. Tò 4. part 2. pag. 150. and sometimes contrary decrees It cannot be only in order to ratification of the former decree for the former Councels infallibility is sufficient for that Or if the succeeding Councels ratification were useful it ought to be given without talking and discoursing contrary meerly upon the former debate and establishment So then their talk is either vain jangling to no purpose or it tends to alteration and amendment of that which hath been formerly decreed according to Augustines speech mentioned by you That often the precedent general Councels are mended by the following But you say They have altered and changed Laws and constitutions of Governments made and established by former and a little after Councels admit a liberty to debate matters of religion and that what was once goâ—d and convenient may prove afterwards circumstances varying bad and inconvenient Reply 1. If by Constitutions of Government you understand Government it self this will not agree with what you said against Calvin That Christians generally maintained and professed that the Government of the Church was unalterable by any mortal But if you mean onely such rules as concern the Execution of Government I say the alterations made by Councels have not been only of these nor does Augustin intend such things as will appear to any that considers the place you cite for it a Book of his against the Donatists in which his main drift is to prove against them that Baptisme was but to be administred once Now whereas the Donatists objected that Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk in a Councell did determine the lawfulnesse of re-baptization Augustine answers That the Scriptures cannot be doubted of but the writings of Bishops may be reprehended by others more prudent yea Provincial Councels must give way to General and the former general Councels themselves may be amended by the latter 2. It s most evident that the Alterations of succeeding Councels have been about matters of faith I suppose these are matters of faith 1. The Popes Supremacy his universal Headship and Lordship over other Patriarcks and Councels Bellarmine calls this one main pillar of Catholick Religion and one of the chiefe Heads of your faith for this you urge Councels yet there are many Councels contradict this as Concil Carthag 3. Can. 26. Concil Nic. 1. Can. 6. Concil Constantin 3. Can. 36. Concil Basil Sess 2. Where it is decreed that the Pope ought to be obedient to the Councel which decree hath beene freely imbraced and maintained by the French Papists against the Trentists 2. Communion under one kind is decreed by your latest Councels yet Cassander tells us that Communion in both kinds was by our Lords institution Apostolical tradition publick and perpetual custome of all times and further was confirmed by the Decrees of Popes and Councels 3. Worship of Images is established by later Councels yet the Councel of Eliberis Can. 36 and the seventh General Councel of
Popes Legates sitting in it yet pleased not the Pope by their decree in the second Session That the Pope ought to be subject to a general Council This was also the decree of the Council of Constantinople which notwithstanding was called by John the 24. and confirmed by Martin the 5 two Popes 3. Infallibility is not subjected in the body of the faithful for it 's a clear truth which Dr Featly observed Whatsoever the Romanists say of the infallibility of the Church they resolve it at last into the Authority of the Church Indeed if we speak of the universal visible Church as comprehending all Beleevers in the world it 's not possible that all should err for then Christ should want a Church but for particular Churches it 's most evident they are subject unto error Papists profess it openly of other Churches and sometimes confess it of the Roman The Council of Trent decree to reform many things in manners and doctrine in that Church and there was great need so to do Cassander ingeniously acknowledgeth a defection from the primitive Church Cassand Cons Act. 7. p. 929. both in regard of integrity of manners and discipline and also in regard of sincerity of doctrine and further saith that this Church hath provoked her Husband multis erroribus vitiis with her many errors and vices From all this it 's most infallibly true that the Roman in none of their Considerations is infallible I will now come to examine his Arguments Pag. 12. he begins with a supposition saying Supposing it for granted that Christs knowledg of Gods revealed Truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching and teaching to the full height and perfection of a Rule of Belief to the first Christians it cannot in reason be denyed he having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches as appears by his own words Joh. 15. Joh. 20. but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians whence it follows that all matters of Belief as well other Points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit and that whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Belief In answer hereunto I will first consider the Supposition and afterwards the inferences and proofs of them There are divers things herein questionable if not simply false 1. 'T is said Christs preaching and teaching was a Rule of Belief Ans If by these acts you understand the materia circa quam the matter of his preaching viz. the Scripture or Word of God then it 's true that his teaching was the Rule of Faith i. e. that which he taught and discovered to them was the Rule of Faith but if you understand it of his transient preaching as if by these acts he propounded to them a Rule of Faith for so your words seem to import it 's false for Christ by his preaching did not propound a new Rule of Faith but did onely reveal that rule of Faith which was before laid and was contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Hence it was that Christ sent his hearers to the Scriptures John 5.39 and himselfe did preach out of the Scriptures Luk. 24.25.26 27 44. c. Luk. 4.16 and that for this end as Beda notes that he might manifest himself to be the same that spoke in the Prophets Beda apud Lyran. and that he might remove that sacrilegious conceit that there was one God of the Old another of the New Testament Yea further Thus did the Apostles after him Act. 26.22 they preached nothing but what was contained in the Law and Psalms and Prophets 2. 'T is said was a Rule of Beliefe to the first Christian◠Ans And is it not a Rule of Belief unto us who are after-Christians Had the primitive Christians one Rule of Faith and we another If there be one Faith why not one Rule of Faith to all Christians why doth the Apostle exhort the Philippians and in them all Christians to walk by the same rule In eadem regulâ fidei Phil. 3.16 Gloss interl If there were one rule doth that blessing Gal. 6.16 extend only to the Primitive Churches and not rather to all Christians who were to walk by the same rule that they walked The teaching of Christ doth not make one rule and of the Apostles another but both reflect upon and explain one and the same rule of Faith 3. Whereas you say Christs knowledg of Gods revealed truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching c. Pon might have done well to have explained what knowledg and what power this is you speak of which is sufficient to qualifie a person for propounding a rule of Faith I conceive its requisite 1. that this knowledg extend to whatsoever Faith is to belief for seeing the rule of Faith must be exact containing neither more nor less then Faith is to belief hence it will follow the Propounder of this rule must know what is the adequate object of Faith This universality of Christs knowledg is hinted in one of the Texts you mention viz. Joh. 15. All I have learned of my Father I have made known unto you Here is first an universal knowledg and then the proposal of a rule suitable to this knowledg 2. That this knowledg be most certain and infallible no teaching can be a rule of belief but that which is grounded on infallible knowledg conjectural knowledg may be a ground of opinion not of Faith Hence is that expression Joh. 19.35 He that saw it bare record and his record is true and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe Now this infallibility in the subject knowing ariseth either 1. from the Divine Nature in the person Thus the persons in the Trinity are only infallible and for this cause it is that many learned Papists do deny that our Faith is resolved into the authority of the Church and Azorius tells us that in his time it was the common opinion of your Divines that Faith was ultimately resolved into God Inter Cathol tres sunt opiniones una est asserentium primam rationem in quam fides nostra ultimò resolvitur esse Deum revelantem quae sunt fidei Deus enim est prima summa veritas quaé falli ullo modo nec fallere potest ac ratio credendi debet esse talis ac tanta ut ei falsum subesse non possit Haec opinio quam sequitur Cajetanus est communi consensu in Theol. Scholis modo recepta Azor. instit Moral parl 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. the revealer of the objects of Faith and that upon this account because he could neither deceive nor be deceived being the prime and chief Verity and the reason of Faith must be such as cannot deceive and for this reason he rejects
endeavour to answer them for the present I understand not what they should prove and therefore dismiss them without any answer In your third Section you go about to prove the Churches infallibility as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith and you urge divers Arguments which I now come to examine and answer Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrability whereby to convey the truth safely and without danger of miscarrying by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth against ignorance error darkness weakness For this you urge divers Texts In these words though they seem an intention of but one argument yet there are these two viz. 1. If the Church cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability then Christ hath endowed her with it But she cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability Ergo c. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth viz. ignorance darkness error and weakness then hath he endowed her with inerrability but he hath so armed her Ergo c. To these in order Ans First to the first I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the major Proposition the reason of my denial is this Christ hath not made the Church the principal much less the only means of conveying truth safely Though yoor Pope Cardinals Jesuites Priests yea General Councils should err yet there remains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying that is the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 Beda paraphrasing upon those words In a dark place Beda apud Lyran. hath this note In hujus saeculi nocte c. In the night of this world full of temptations vices and errors where there is hardly one to be found without error against which this light is necessary So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations vices errors in the judgment of this venerable Author It may be you will object that infallibility is necessary for the Church that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is But I deny this to be true For 1. It cannot be denied but God did make use of the Jewes to preserve the Scriptures Rom. 3.2 yet by the leaven of their Doctors the Pharisees the Commandments of God were transgressed Matth. 23.5 Yea it evidenceth their errability that they mistook the sense of the Law and when Christ came Mariana tract pro edit vulgát cap. 7. p. 50. that they did generally oppose and resist him and yet I believe the Scriptures yea I had almost said the very iota's and titles of them were preserved from miscarrying Your Authors confess of the Hebrew text that there is no substantial error in it 2. The Law was by Gods providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord unknown to any till Hilkiah the High-Priest found it in the daies of Josiah 2 King 22.8 Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledg not the Greek Church to be a true Church yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them whilest the error of the Chiliasts and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to receive the Eucharist remained in the Church which was for some 100. of years yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarrying The truth is Gods Providence is chiefly ingaged for the preservation of these books and that concurring any means that God useth may suffice though they were Turks and Heathens that had the keeping of them 2. I answer by denying your Minor and say the Church may convey the truth without the gift of inerrability bestowed on her as well as other Churches subject to errour have done Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds the Commandments and Scriptures though we deny you to be sound members of the Catholike Church We admire and adore Gods providence not your inerrability had not a Divine hand overawed you I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better then the Fathers have done whose writings you have notoriously corrupted and falsified as hath beene manifested against you by our learned Writers 2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I answer by distinction viz. a subject and particularly the Church may be armed against ignorance darkness error and weakness either in regard of hurts blows and lesser foils or in regard of total ruine or a final overthrow or if you will these may be considered either as total or only partial It 's exemption not onely from total and ruining ignorance darkness error and weakness but from inferiour degrees hereof that can prove infallibility in the subject so exempted So then if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils so as they cannot at all hurt her then your Argument is good but this exemption I utterly deny Christ hath only so far armed his Church whilst Militant against these that they shall not ruine or destroy her gross ignorance and obstinate error the forerunners of ruine cannot happen to the Church but lesser degrees of these may This is confessed by your own Authors of each of these 1. Ignorance Lombard saith Lomb. l. 4. dist 18. f. Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium c. God doth not alwayes concur with the judgment of the Church which judgeth somtime by stealth and ignorance 2. Darkness Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. Occam saith Circa illa c. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expresly it s not necessary that the Churches judgment be alwayes certain Sure uncertaintie of judgment must arise from darkness 3. Error Thus Picus saith Fieri potest c. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural Franc Picus Theor. 23. and as this noxious humour so that may diffuse into the body unsound opinions Stapl. Relect c. 1. q. 4. Art 5. Not. 1. Stapleton confesseth That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places because great men may not only doubt but err in some points of Doctrine and yet the true Church remain with them 4. Weakness Thus Turrecrema saith Quamvìs ecclesia Turrecr sum d. Eccles 2. c. 112. c. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men something through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine Thus it 's confest that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies But because you bring Scripture to patronize your cause let us see whether it speak for you 1. Against Ignorance you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven Ans 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Churches infallibilitie from this Text all that they conclude from it is this That to the Apostles and
such as have the guiding and teaching of others deeper knowledg of Gods word and mysteries is given then to the common people as also to Christians generally that which was not given to the obstinate Jewes which makes nothing from a total exemption of them from ignorance if it did much more would that place of St. John 1. Ep. 2. cap. 27. where 't is said The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things c. Prove such an exemption for private Christians and so lay a foundation for their infallibilitie which would derogate from the Honour of his Holiness of Rome 2. It is most evident that the Disciples of Christ to whom these words were spoken had ignorance in them and that of such things as were needful to be known See Mark 9.31.32 Luk. 9.45 Joh. 12.16 viz. the Death and Resurrection of Christ c. 2. Aagainst Darkness you urge Matth. 6. but 't is Matth. 5.14 You are the light of the world Ans 1. If you mean that the Apostles and their Successors are so light that they have no darkness in them you are no better then a blasphemer for it 's said of God and cannot be spoken of any other God is light and in him is no darkness at all 1 Jâ—h 1.5 Aug. in Ps 10. 2. S. Augustine alluding to this place compares the Church to the Moon which you know hath her dark spots though the Sun to which Christ is somtimes compared be altogether transparent and bright 3. They are called a light not so much in regard of their inward qualification Lyran. in Mat. 5.14 as of their office which is to instruct and direct others in their way as Gregory Burgensis and Cyranâ—s note 4. Learned Cameron conceives that this is spoken of the Apostles as Apostles which is probable because our Saviour speak to them as related to an Apostolical or Universal charge and thus it proves nothing for your present Church Lastly I fear that whilst your men was writing for inerrability your thoughts were possessed with the Churches visibilitie which your Doctors of Rhemes would prove from hence But then why did you not bring in the next words Ro. 17.3 A City set on a Hill which would more directly with a little variation of number have pointed at your Holy Mother on her seven-headed Beast 3. Against Error and Falshood you urge Joh. 14. I will send unto you the Spirit of truth to remain with you for ever And Isa 62. Thou shalt no more be called forsaken To your former I answer it makes nothing for you for it 's one thing to have the Spirit of Truth to lead into truth and another thing to have it making us infallible I conceive there are few of your Priests or Jesuites but think themselves to have the Spirit of Truth yet are not infallible Nay private Christians may have this Spirit of truth and by it may be kept from damnable or Soul-ruining error yet who would say they are infallible It 's a groundless distinction of the Rhemists to say That the Spirit for many other causes is given to divers private men and to all good men to sanctification but to teach all truth and to preserve in truth and from error he is promised and performed only to the Church and the chief Governour and General Councils thereof The contrary to this is affirmed by themselves in another place Joh. 17.17 saying Christ prayeth that the Apostles their Successors and all that shall be of their belief may be sanctified in truth i. e. may have the Spirit of truth and be freed from error The Spirit then may be had and yet inerrability be wanting to a person To your other Text It seems to be put in to make up a number of Texts not of Proofs I believe you neither considered Text nor Context when you brought it in I profess I cannot see the least shadow of proof in it for the Churches infallibilitie it being spoken to the Jewes in regard of their desolations and therefore contains a promise of Gods returning with mercie and loving kindness which was suitable for their comfort in their low condition 4. Against Weakness you urge 1 Tim. 3. She is the Pillar and ground of truth And Mat. 16. Hell Gates shall not prevail against her To the former I answer 1. If any particular Church be here spoken of it is not the Roman but the Church of Ephesus where Timothy governed which by your own confessions might err 2. The words may be refer'd to what follows It 's not said expresly She is the Pillar c. as you abusively read it Cameron doth refer them to the next verse and gives divers reasons why they should be so refer'd Verba ista Columna c. sunt conjungenda cum sequentibus ratio 1. Alioqui erit Oratio Apostoli hiulca suspensa si legamus Domus Dei columna fundamentum veritatis sine controversia c. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non coherent ista 2 Non solet Apostolus novi Argumenti tractionem inchoâ—re à conjunctione 3. Haec est usitatissima formula inter Judaeos quum quis profitetur se traditurum praecipua dogmata Religionis ut illud pronunciat columnam esse fundamentum veritatis vel sapientiae quod traditurus est Et solent Apostoli uti phrasibus receptis in ecclesia judaica sed accommodatis ad rem quam agunt Cameto shewing amongst other things that this was a manner of speech which the Jews did frequently use when they delivered some main and principal points of Faith And hereunto the Apostle Paul who was well versed in the customes of the Jewish Rabbies being now to deliver the main points of our Faith concerning Jesus Christ might well allude If we take it thus it 's not the Church but the truth it self especially those principal points of Religion mentioned in the next verses Thus Irenaeus saith That the Gospel which was preached by the Apostles was afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in writing Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum that it might be a ground and Pillar of our Faith 3. Supposing it be spoken of the Church Iten advers haeres lib. 3. c. 1. init yet this is 1. In regard of the Word of God which is preached and continued in the Church if God remove his Word from a Church as from the Churches of Asia c. that Church ceaseth to be a Pillar and ground of truth 2. In regard of true Believeers who are truly the house of the living God and adhere to the Word of God others are not De compage domus they are not of the House Augustine hath a notable saying to this purpose Aug. praefat in Ps 47. he tells us the Church consists of Saints such whose names are
The reasons of my denial are these 1. It s the priviledg of the Word of God written or the Scripture to be the ground of Faith These things are written that ye might believe Joh. 20. ult i. e. that your Faith might have a certain foundation revelations or traditions being more uncertain and easily pretended where they have no existence or being Compare with this 2 Pet. 1.18.19 Ye have a more sure word of Prophecie that is In quo magis confirmetur auditor whereby the hearer may be more confirmed So that the word is more sure and that to us inasmuch as we are thereby more confirmed Hence it is that our Saviour sends his hearers to the Scriptures that therein they might finde what they have to believe Joh. 5.39 So doth the Prophet Isa 8.20 and Abraham in the parable Luk. 16.29 which your Lyranus comments thus upon Lyran. in Luk. 1 is 29. Habent Moysen c. they have Moyses who taught moral actions and the Prophets who delivered mysteries of Faith and these suffice to salvation therefore it follows let them hear them This was the measure of the Apostles preaching and faith Act. 26.22 Act. 17.10.11 By this the Bereans tryed the truth of the Apostles preaching and for its conformity thereto Annot. of Divines on the Text. did receive it into their belief 't is said therefore many of them believed i. e. because of the testimony of the Scriptures So that we may truly say that if the Apostles had preached any thing beside or contrary to Scripture the Bereans would not have believed their preaching and the Apostle himself would have justified them herein Gal. 1.8.9 On which Text Augustine hath this note Qui praeter greditur Aug. apud Lyran. in c. He that goes beside the rule of Faith doth not walk in the way but departs from it Neither would the Apostle himself have us found our hope on him but on that truth which he declared That which was spoken by him was better then he by whom it was spoken From whence what can be more clearly infer'd then that 1. The Word of God preached is the rule of Faith And 2. That faith is not resolved into persons preaching the truth but into the truth preached by them contrarie to both which is your minor Proposition 2. Ans Supposing it true that the Church must be the ground of Faith yet I affirme that this is not yours or any other present Church but only the Primitive Church which as I have already shewed is of greater authority then the present Church which is in a kind grounded upon the Apostolike Church or that Church which contains the Prophets Apostles c. All succeeding Churches are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets whose testimony because of their visible converse with God and Christ becomes efficax ad credendum effectual for the grounding of Faith It s observeable that whereas Abraham might have told the rich man that his Brethren had a present Church to hearken to yet he only mentions Moses and the Prophets 2. I affirm that if your Church be a foundation of Faith yet this would not be a Divine but only an humane Faith And indeed this is the very reason why your Doctors commonly held that Faith is ultimately resolved upon God himself revealing the truth as Azorius observes because Divine Faith must be resolved into a Divine testimony which the testimony of the Church is not and they prove it by divers arguments especially by foure which I have transcribed out of Azorius And though he do not altogether adhere to their opinion Ratio 1. Ecclesiae testimonium est quidem divinum sed participatione non per se sua naturâ at Dei testimonium est divinum per se suâ naturâ fides divina resolvi debet in testimonium quod sit per se non autem participatione divinum 2. Quae sunt fidei revelatione Divinâ non naturae lumine sunt patefacta at Deus est qui revelat ac pandit res fidei non ecclesia 3. In Angelis Prophetis Apostolis caeteris Librorum Cananicorum Scriptoribus fides non resolvebat in ecclesiae testimonium sed in Deum per se pro xime revelantem at fides nostra est ejusdem speciei cujus fui illa Ergo in eandem rationem credendi reducitur 4. Quamvis ecclesia sit testis non tamen Condit aliquem articulum fidei sed declarat explicat quae sunt fidei c. Azor. Instit Moral Parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. but allows somthing to the Church yet he acknowledges that it 's ex accidenti by accident that our Faith is resolved into the Churches authority Again 2. Many learned Papists believe and teach that it 's onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that this or the other Pope is Peters Successor and Christs Vicar on earth because it depends on this Proposition that this or the other Pope is orderly and Canonically chosen to the Popedome which is also objected against General Councils Now how can we believe a Popes Decrees for a Divine Faith when it s onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that he is Pope or Peters Successor Becanus clearly resolves That if any stay in the resolution of the Church and ascend not to the Scripture his assent who believes because of the authority of the Church is not an assent of Theological Faith but of an other inferiour order viz. that which Scotus calls an acquired Faith and saith is only conceived by the Churches testimony which indeed is nothing else but an human faith for its such a Faith whereby we believe one that may both be deceived himself and may deceive us although we believe that he will not deceive us Sot lib. 2. de Nat. grat c. 7. Hereupon Sotus acknowledgeth of him that he held the authoritie of the Church to be only humane than which what can be more contradictory to your assertion 3. Ans I grant that the testimony of the Church is an external motive to belief as is also consent of people conformitie of the things believed to natural light accomplishment of Prophecies Miracles Gods Judgments against the Enemies of Truth c. The testimonie of the woman of Samaria was an external motive to the Samaritanes belief not the formal cause of it so the preaching of Godly Ministers is a means whereby men are brought to believe yet you will not conclude that Faith is built on them and they infallible It is the Church by which as a means not for which as the formal ground we do believe Your fifth Argument is taken from the Churches composure and nature 5. Arg. p. 18. 16. in these words Look on the Churches composure and nature and her strength will appear yet more by reason she is framed and made up of men Gen. 22. dispersed and spread over the world Act. 1. who
All Papists If you have are mens judgments and thoughts visible to the eye Or did they all write their judgments and give you them that your eye might see them But I shall confute this hereafter 2. Why do you vary your phrase for first you say this unity is an effect of acknowledgiâ—g the Church for the rule of belief And then as thinking you had missed it you speak of actual squaring mens belief to the Church There is a great difference betwixt these A Papist may acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet through ignorance of what the Church holds or some other cause he may not square his belief to the Church Experience tells me that many Papists in these parts acknowledg the Church to be the rule of belief yet it s hard to find one that doth not in some point or other differ from the Church I have found many that in some points dissent from her Soto and Catharinus who were both present at the Trent Council could not agree what was the Councils meaning in the points of Original sin and justification but wrote one against the other of those subjects So that though both of them might acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet they could not both square their belief to the Church unlesse she be a maintainer of contrary Doctrines 4. May not experience carry it as much for the Scriptures and shew that they are the rule of faith for its most certain that all that square their belief to the Scriptures are one in Religion Thus the primitive Christians did square their belief to the Scriptures and were unanimous It s mens leaving the Scriptures and building upon their own fancies or building their faith upon changable and unstable men that makes dissentions and jarring The Word of God being always the same there cannot be dissention where is conformity to it 2. You give a reason hereof saying Of which no other reason can be given but that the Church is alwaies constant and certain other rules subject to uncertainty and change Answ 1. What mean you when you say that the Church is always constant and certain is it in regard of existence I grant it of the Catholique but deny it of your Roman Church God had a Church before there was a Roman Church and when Babylon the great is fallen there will be the Church still I know no warrant you have that your Church shall always continue there is much in Scripture to perswade the contrary Or 2. Is it in regard of holding and manifestation of the truth but this way it hath not been always constant Time was when it was Arian under Liberius and the Orthodox grievously persecuted in it time was when it administred the Lords supper to Children even for 600 years Time was when the Bible of Clemeâ—t was commanded under the danger of a curse to be received as only Authentical now Sixtus his Bible must be so received upon the same danger Time was when your twelve articles of Pope Pius's creed were not enjoyned as necessary to be believed to salvation as now they are Again Sometimes it hath happened that the Church could not would not or durst not manifest the truth Where was then its certainty The question about the efficâ—cy of grace was twice brought to the Apostolique chair forsooth and after many years disputation in regard of its subtilty it was sent away with the difficulties in determination wherewith it came thither Questions it seems must be easy or else your vertual Church cannot certainly determine them What certainty is here when subtilties can stop the Popes determinations Your decrees concerni g the virgins impeccability in the Council of Trent are dark and of no great certainty 2. It s fâ—lse that other rules are subject to uncertainty and change The Scriptures are more certain and unchangable than your Church they are called a more sure word of prophecy to which we do well that we take heâ—d But that we might think that you reverence Scriptures you say True it is that Scripture in itsel that iâ— as it is the Word of God dictatâ—d bâ— the Holâ—-Ghost is certain and infallible but to us 2 Tim. 3. to wiâ— as it is liable to this and to oth rs privâ—te interpretation it is as uncertain and â—allible as man witnesse the many contrary interprâ—tations c. Answ 1. The Scripture is not only certain in it selfe but even to us and therefore the Apostle speaking to private Christians 2 Pet. 1. saith We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye d well that ye take heed as unto a light c. The Scripture oft declares its own plainnesse and certainty as to us Prov. 8.9 All the words of my mouth are plain to him that understandeth they are plain obvious Vatabl. and easie to be understood Psal 19.7 The testimony of the Lord is SVRE making wise the simple Psalm 1â—9 130 The en rance â—f thy Word giveth liâ—ht it giveth undâ—rstanding unâ—o the simple 2. Th u h particular men may makâ— wrâ—ng interpre ations of some placâ—s yâ—t thâ—s is when they use not that diligence and those means that they ought to use as viewing antecedent and subsequent Scriptures comparing like places considering what words are figurative what proper reading and pondering the interpretation of the learned bringing all to the rule of faith i. e. plain places wherein the articles of faith are clearly propounded Tertul. l. de veland virgin or if you will the Apostles Creed which Tertullian calls the immutable and unalterable rule of faith And your selves grant that the virtual Church may erre if she use not diligence 3. May not the same you say of Scripture be said of your Popes Decretals Councils Canons c. may not these have wrong interpretations No doubt but they may witness the difference betwixt Soto and Catharinus Certain it is that the Scriptures in points necessary to salvation are more clear than your Decrees and Canons Lastly I know not what you quote 2 Tim. 3. For I find nothing for you in that Chapter but rather against you Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child and they are said to be able to make him wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus Here is study of the Scriptures note of the Churches Canons Here is faith in Jesus Christ not in the Church The Scriptures as I said or ignorant of such expressions CHAP. VIII Of the Spirit of Spiritists WHen I had read this Title and compared it with the Title of your tenth Chapter I thought Spiritists and Protestants had noted two distinct kinds of persons But the matter of this and the next Chapter shew that in the language of the beast they are the same It s strange you bring not in Scripturists and Christians they are equally strange to you who glory only in the name CATHOLIQUE but why do you use these names Is it
rule of faith as such cannot be considered but as to us it being a relative tearm cannot be considered without relation to beleevers who are its correlative you might as well tell of a father considered in himself or in respect of his Child A father abstract from relation to his child is no father no more is the Word of God abstract from its respect to beleeve in a rule of Faith 2. You are extream quick and witty in distingishing betwixt Gods truth revealed and the same truth expressed I wonder what 's the difference doth not God when he reveales his truth expresse it to us revelation is nothing else but the expressing of some thing formerly unknown Spiritists say Gods truth revealed or expressed to us in Scripture is the rule of Faith and manners to beleevers 2. You say Their difference is about the exprâ—ssion These Spiritists holding that it is that of their private Spirit joyned to to that of Scipture only those Catholiques that it is that of the Châ—rch Scripture bearing witness to her truth Answ 1. If Spiritists for I use your own word and you agree about the rule of Faith both in it self and in respect of us that it is Gods revealed truth and the same truth expressed to us Why then do you entitle your Chapter The Spiritists rule of Faith as if we had one rule of Faith and you another whereas you assert that the difference is not about the rule but the expression of it You explain the difference thus Spiritists hold that the rule of Faith is Gods revealâ—d truth expressed to them by their private Spirit joyned to the expression of Scripture only Catholiques teach that it is God revealed truth expressed by the Church Scripture bearing wirness to her truth Ans 1. For your opinion I say 1. What mean you by Gods revealed truth I perceive you understand not the Word of God revealed by the Prophets and Apostles in Scripture for you seem to blame us for our expression of Scripture only and accordingly oppose the Scriptures sufficiency in your next section 2. How comes it that the Spirit of God hath no place with you in expressing the truth of God Must your Diana shoulder out the Scripture and the Spirit too The Spirit is much beholding to you for your opinion Are you not Antispiritists in this your doctrine and clearly destitute of the favourable effects of the Spirit of God 3. Hath the Scripture no use or imployment with you but to come in and bear witness that the Church is true Doth it not witness for Gods truth as much as for your Churches truth Is it not the testimony of the Lord Jesus But as the thing Church is the Pillar of Truth so the word Church is the very Pillar and Prop of Popish Errors and therefore you use it usque ad nauseam 4. Are not you like a turning mill-horse or like the wicked in the Psalms Impii nmbulant in circuitu You say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith at least partial as the Church expresseth that is expoundeth it and if you be asked how you know the Church expounds it right you answer by the Scripture which bears witnesse to the Churches truth The Scriptures bear witness to the Churches truth and the Church bears witness to the Scriptures truth But your tenet is so clear with you though most grosse and wicked that you add no confirmation of it but what ariseth from the opposition of ours as you have delivered it Therefore 2. I come to defend ours against you but first I will lay it down in other tearms 't is this we say that the rule of divine belief is the Word of God contained only in Scripture the means whereby we understand it is principaly the Spir t of God which enlightens our minds and eâ—abâ—es us by the use of those means God hath appointed us to use amongst wh ch we number the consent of learned men in former and in the present age for the findiâ—g out of the Scriptures meaâ—ing Now if this be tâ—e private Spirit you speak of we acknowledg it and own it and account what you say against it to be sinfull and foolish as will presently appear Against us 1. You affirm that this Spirit is false and spurious Answ 1. Is the Spirit of God in private persons false and spurious Or have they not this Spirit Take heed of blasphemy for you are at the brink of it The Spirit is promised to private Christians as well as to others and doth testifie as truly though not always so manifestly and fully in them as in publique persons convened in Council I could quote many particular Doctors of your Church preferring their own expositions of Scripture before the expositions of the Church and Fathers but for brevity to refer to Dr. Mortons learned Apeal lib. 9. c. 29. I will only say one thing for your self that in your expositions of Scripture so much as it is especially in your reading of it you follow neither Church nor Father nor honest Christian witness the Scriptures you bring for your impudent assertion 1. text 2. Pet. 1. No interpretation of Scripture by private Spirit Excellently read you have found private Spirit in expresse words yet let me tell you had you been put to read this Text instead of a Miserere mei before a Judg of Assise your reading would hardly have saved you from hanging 2. Text Math. 18.17 To belâ—eve the Churcâ— Admiâ—able Heâ—e is faith iâ— the Church in express tearms which none ever saw before 3. Text 2 Cor. 10. Where say you St. Paul wisheth to captivate the understanding to the obedience of faith Yet more falshood The Rhemists as well as we and all men that are in their right wit and have any thing of ingenuity read it to the Obedience of Christ I wonder you read it not to the obedi-of the Church And thus you would prove both faith and obedience due to the Church which in time might have procured you a Cardinalship 4. Text Luke 16. None can serve two Masters This reading is tolerable I will briefly now answer these Texts 1. To the first I say the words are these knowing this first that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interprâ—tation and they are spoken of the penmen of Scripture not of private Interpreters who did not use their own wills and counsels vers 21. but were inspired by the Holy Ghost The Rhemists reading shews that it belongs to the Prophets Vnderstanding this first that no prophesie of Scripture is Made by private interpretati n It 's spoken of the Composure not of the Exposition of Scripture 2. Your second Text I have formerly answered 3. Your third Text Chrysostom understands of bringing men from the estate of death and destruction into the estate of life and Salvation subjecting them to Christ Your gloss by All understanding conceives is meant all proud conceited persons who are made subject to the faith of
Christ which they had before resisted 4. Your fourth text shews if it be any thing to our present purpose that the Spirit and your Roman Church are two Masters that cannot both be served and therefore it s not strange you have opposed the Spirit whilst you have stood for your Churches interest But Sir know that the Spirit of God and the true Church are not contrary Masters much lesse the Spirit of God in private persons and the same Spirit in publique Ministers The Spirit of God is in the Church and in every particular and reall member thereof revealing himself to each according to the capacity and need of every member 2. You affirm concerning the Scriptures that the Scripture is deficient which you prove by Scripture and by Reason 1. By Scripture for Scripture attesteth it in that it refers to the Church Answ 1. The Scripture never refers to the Church for the perfecting of it that so it may become a perfect Rule of Faith Azor. instit moral part 2. l. 5. c. 24. ad finem if it do shew me where for I know not 2. Your own Authors confesse that the Church cannot make an article of faith how then can she supply the Scriptures deficiency 2. You attempt to prove it by reason saying reason makes it good because it declares not all points that Christians are bound to believe which they acknowledg themselves bound to beleeve Answ 1. I could bring many testimonies to prove that Scripture is a rule your selves grant it to be a rule when you call it Canonical with exclusion of other writings now it s no rule if it be not perfect for the rule that faith requires ought to be as full and ample as the duty of faith 2. The Scripture asserts that whatsoever we are bound to beleeve as necessary to salvation to be beleeved is contained in Scripture that noted place 2 Tim. 3.15 16. makes it evident the abundant utility shews its sufficiency to instruct any to salvation that speech of Biel Quomodo anima hominis In Can. miss lect 7. f. 146. c. How can the soul of man live the life of Righteousnâ—sse and Grace unlesse it know Gods will and those things which according to it are just or unjust to be done or to be left undone to be loved or to be hated to be fear'd or to be attempted and what are to be beleeved and wâ—at to be hoped for with what ever else is necessary to our salvation all which sola docet sacra Scriptura the sacred Scripture alone tâ—acheth Indeed we grant that all things to be beleived are not expresly set down in Scripture nevertheless what is not expressed may be deduced from that which is expressed or analogically reduced thereunto But I come to your instances of points of faith which Scripture declares not 1. Instance concerning Scriptures You say they declare not that those books of Scripture which are received for Canonical are so indeed that some are Canonical other some Apocriphal that they are determinately these or others â—nsw 1. They do declare that those books which are received for Canonical by Protestants are such and the Apocryphal books are not such For 1. One part of Scriptures gives testimony of another The New Testament bears witness of those books that go under the name of Moses the Prophets and Psalms again they give testimony to the New Testament Yea the whole Scripture doth bear witness to it self that it is the Word of God haveing those intinsecal notes whereby it may be known thus it is with the book of the creatures which sets forth the wisdom power and goodness of God and is therefore a witnesse thereof Now if it be asked whence it appears that this is a witnesse it must be granted that it appears by that order which is in the Creation together with the profitablenesse and usefullnesse of all things in their places The harmony consent spiritual profit c. of Gods Word in Scripture doth evidence that it is Gods Word and sacred Scripture If it were not thus that Scripture gave testimony of it self how doth the Church it self know Scripture to be Scripture She cannot plead Enthusiasme and the humane testimony of Fathers is no sufficient ground for infallibility 2ly All things are written by the Apostles which are necessary to be beleeved by all men Bellarm. de suffis script c. 11. these are Bellarmines words but to beleeve the Scriptures to be the Scripture is necessary for all men say you therefore it must needs follow that its written by the Apostles that the Scriptures are Scriptures 3ly By way of retortion I pray Sir how do you know that this or the other is the true Church for this Bellarmine saith must be certainly known in as much as all opinions depend upon his testimonies The same way that you say the Church may be known even by it self the same way do we know the Scriptures they give evidence to themselves 4th The exact knowledg of what books are Canonical is not absolutely necessary to be beleeved I deny not but the knowledg of Gods Word is thus necessary and this may be where that knowledg is wanting It cannot rationally be denyed that Christians for some hundred years after the Apostles did know the Word of God yet wanted exact knowledg of what books were Canonical nor was the knowledg of them judged necessary to salvation 2. Instance concerning the Jewish Sabboth You say The Scripture declare not that the Jews Sabboth â—s to be neglected and laid aside and the sunday solemnized An w. The Scriptures declare both The first Col. 2.16 17. Let no man judg you in respect of the Sabboth days which are a shaddow of things to come but the body is of Christ Azorius saith the precept of the Sabboth Azor. inst tuor p. 2. l. 1. c. 1. if you consider the determinate and set time did belong to the ceremonial Law and therefore was abolished by the death of Christ Now the Scriptures are most clear and full for the abolishing of the ceremonies For the second the Scriptures expresly teach the solemnization of Sunday 1 Cor. 16. Apoc. 1. Calling it the Lords day Rhem. amot on Gal. 4.10 The Rhemists say In the Apoc. c. 1. There is plain mention of the Sunday that is our Lords day unto which the Jewes Sabboth was altered 3. Instance Concerning the Creed you say The Scriptures declare not that the Creed is authentique and truly the Apostles Answ 1. If you consider the matter of it the Scriptures declare that it is truly authentique and the Apostles for the articles thereof are Apostolique Doctrine contained in the Scriptures Every article may be proved by them 2ly If you consider the form or composure of it that the Apostles made it each one of them addding an article to it this is not necessary to be beleived being but grounded on humane fallible testimony 4. Inst Concerning things indifferent
be so evident in it self why do not all Papists agree with you but rather oppose you 2. Your reason is most ridiculous 't is this The true Church was before any false one therefore succession is proper to the true Church If you had been speaking of antiquity your argument would have had some force in it but antiquity and succession are different things constituting two distinct notes of your Church Antiquity properly points at the beginning of Churches succession only at the continuation of them But I think your mind was upon antiquity for in your fifth Section you purposely handle it and your meaning here is this that false Churches cannot derive their succession to the first foundation thereof which is Christ for you say There must be a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ c. To which I answer 1. Heretical Churches as such cannot derive their succession from Christ or the Apostles for then they should derive their Heresies also But 2. Those Churches that are now or have lately been Heretical may yet derive a personal succession from Christ in as much as at first they were planted and established in the truth by the Apostles but have since degenerated Thus it is with the Greek Churches and your Roman Church and probably was with the Arians who though they wanted doctrinal succession yet might have personal there being Bishops of note who maintained that Heresie In the former regard its true which you say that the Arian derivation climbeth no further then Arius there 's a great difference betwixt succession of Doctrines and persons though you seem to take no notice of it Lastly you return to the Protestant Church and whereas it s said There have been named in several ages the Albigenses the Apostolici Wickliff Hus. You Answer None of these were Protestants c. Rep. 1. Some of these were Protestants the Albigenses otherwise called Waldenses were Protestants Parsons confesseth that they devised and framed out of Scripture the whole platform of the Protestant Gospel Pars 3. Con. part 3. Hist of France Book 1. pag. 15. edit an 1595. Id. p. 67. A French Historian writes thus of them Who in spite of all the Potentates in Christendom sowed about the year 1100. and even since their Doctrine smally differing from the Protestants at this day For the further clearing of this take this extract of their confession of Faith which they delivered to Francis 1. Of France about the year 1540. and which they said was taught unto them ever since the year 1200. It contained the Articles of God the Father Creator of all things of the Son advâ—cate and Intercessor for mankind of the Holy Ghost Comforter and Teacher of the Truth of the Church which they said to be assembled of all the chosen having Jâ—sus Christ for Head of Ministers of the Maâ—istrate whom they confessed ordained of God to punish Malefactors and defend the good to whom it sufficeth not only to carry honor but also to pay Taxes and Imposts without acception of state whatsoever and that at the example of Christ who did likewise practice it Of Baptism which they maintained to be a visible and extenor sign represeâ—ting unto us the Regenerati n of the Spirit and Mortification of the Members Of the Lords Supper which they hold for a thanksgiving and commemora ion of the benefit received by Christ Of Marriage which they say was not forbidden to any by h w much it was Holy and ordained oâ— God Of good work wherâ—in they ought to imploy themselves continually â—f Mans tradition which they ought to shun protesting in Sums that the Rule of their Faith was the Old and New Testament and that they believed all which was contained in the Apostles Creed This positive Confession I have taken verbatim out of the French Historian to which I may add a Negative one out of Aeneas Silvius and others viz. they held that the Bishop of Rome was not above other Bishops That prayers for the dead and Purgatory were devised by the Priests for their own gain That the Images of God and Saints were to be defaced that confirmation and extream unction were no Sacraments That it is vain to pray to the Saints in Heaven since they cannot help us That auricular confession was a trifling thing That it was not meritorious to keep set Fasts of the Church and that such a set number of Canonical hours in praying was vain That Oyl and Chrism were not to be used in Baptism That the Church of Rome was not the Holy Church nor Spouse of Christ but Babylon the mother of Abominations If you desire to see more of them read Calverii Epitom Historian page 555. where you have a large Catalogue of them and now let the reader judge whether they were Protestants or no. But you object two things to prove that they were not Protestants 1. They hold not in all points with them For this you cite divers Authors But I answer 1. I confesse the Authors you mention do severally attribute divers errors to them but these witnesses agree not amongst themselves Guido Carmelita chargeth them with saying that Masse is to be said once only every year Aeneas Silvius contrarily saith that they hold that the Priest may consecrate at any time and minister to them that require it The same Guido saith they held that the words of consecration must be no other but the Pater noster seven times said over the bread but Aeneas Sylvius Antonius and Luxemburg say the contrary affirming that they thought it sufficient to speak the Sacramental words only Prateolus chargeth them with Manicheisme but Reinerus the French Historian and others free them from it 2. Their confessions shew that there is very small difference betwixt them and the Protestants 3. Though they should not hold in all points with Protestants yet they might be Protestants perfect complyance is not absolutely necessary to constitute a person a member of the Church Many of the members of the Church of Rome Corinth Galatia c. did not agree in all points with those Churches yet were members of them The French Papists go under the name of Catholiques yet agree not in all points with the Church of Rome for they deny the Pope to be above a general Council and that the Council of Trent was Oecumenical and Lawfull The books of many named Catholiques have been censured for unsound speeches and because they have not held in all points with your Churh yet are Catholiques still The Apostle supposeth that though those who are perfect do walk by the same rule yet some may be otherwise minded Phil. 3.15 which the Rhemists in their note on that place clearly grant 2. You object that they hold not in all points with themselves Answ 1. We are beholding to you for your good opinion of Protestants the argu-is this They that hold not in all points with themselves are not Protestants The Waldenses hold not
both to pray with him and to anoint him which is far from the ceremony of extream unction thus far Cajetan 3. Saint James's unction is no Sacrament it neither pretends to the name of Sacrament nor refers to any express institution of Jesus Christ which is the property of Evangelicall Sacraments but Popish unction assumeth to it self this name and that in a proper acception against both Scripture and antiquitie Scripture mentioning onely Christs institution of Baptisme and the Supper and antiquity when it speaks of proper Sacraments doing no more Rabanus Maurus who lived about 800 years ago acknowledgeth no more but Baptisme and the Lords Supper Hence I conclude that Protestants though opposite to Popish fopperies are not contrary to Apostolicall Doctrine 11. Inst The Bishop of Romes supremacie in spirituall matters Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church Feed my sheep To thee will I give the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven whatsoever thou shalt tie on earth shall be tied in Heaven Matth. 16. Answ 1. Why do you seperate the Popes Spirituall from his Temporall power for we deny both and they are alike expressed in Scripture but 2. The Popes Supremacy in Spirituall matters is not in plain and formall tearms here expressed for 1. Here is no mention of any Pope or his Supremacy in Spirituall matters here is mention of Peter but few of your Popes have had that name 2. What is commanded and promised to Peter is commanded and promised to him not as Bishop of Rome but as an Apostle and therefore the same is commanded and promised to other Apostles The other Apostles are foundations as well as Peter and I am sure he is not the corner stone The keyes are promised to them as well as to him John 20.22 23. the other Apostles are to feed Christs sheep as well as he yea it is the duty of all Pastors Act. 20.28 3. What reason can be given why Peters supremacy should descend upon his Successors at Rome rather then his successors at Antioch 4. If Peter had any supremacy it was in regard of Apostleship so as to be the prime Apostle and have power over the rest but Apostolike power is not derived by succession upon any The truth is Peter had no power over the rest from Christ for Christs gift of such a power would have prevented the Apostles contention about supremacy or would have answered the question better then those words wherewith Christ did answer He might easily have said why do you strive which should be greatest know you not that I have made Peter your Prince and have made him Supreme but Christ thought of no such matter Thus I have shewed that Protestants do not professe a Doctrine contrary to the Apostles and I further adde that the Apostles doctrine expressed in Scripture is fully received by them We believe all that the Apostles have taught so far as God reveals their Doctrine to us It s therefore a most false slander to say that Protestants refuse some points the Apostles beleeved p. 65. We hold the Catholique faith entire and inviolate in Athanasius's sence we fully believe all the Articles of its Creed It s true we deny divers points that Papists believe we dislike the new articles of your late Creed which Athanasius as well as we received not into his Creed nor were they believed by the Apostles But you object sect 5. It is evident they were there being the same ground to assure us thereof as of Scripture or any other point they believed and that without which under a miracle there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief to wit the Churches constant tradition Answ 1. It s most evident that the points Protestants deny were not believed by the Apostles For 1. The Scriptures mention them not the writings of the Apostles approve not of communion in one kind private masse prayer in an unknown tongue imagined worship auricular confession pardons indulgences restraint of people from reading Scripture or Clergy-men from marriage Popes infallibility sumpreamacy of temporal and spiritual power purgatory prayer for the dead or to Saints departed c. 2. The ancient Creeds do not mention any of these points which they would certainly have done if the Apostles had beleeved them much lesse do they make them necessary articles of faith See Caranz de concil conc Nic. p. 51. Syrm. p. 89. Constant p. 102. Tollet p. 131. Ephes p. 151. Calced p. 181. Read the Creeds of the Apostles of the Nicen Fathers of Syrmium Constantinople Tolet. Ephesus which Caranza calls a summe of all Christian Doctrine of the Romans with divers others and you shall not find one of your new articles so much as hinted in any of them 2. The proof of your evident assertion contains divers falsities as 1. That the Scripture is known only by Tradition or humane testimony whereas it gives testimony to it self as I have before shewed 2. That without the Churches constant tradition there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief For 1. God can make the enemies of his Church the publishers and propagators of his truth Thus Cajetan notes that by the Apostacy and obstinacy of the Jews we know which are the true books of the old Testament 2. The Scriptures might be preserved though there should be a general apostacy and these could testifie of the Apostles belief 2 Reg. 22.8 as that book found in the days of Josiah testified of Moses's commands and threatnings 3. Christians for a long time had not the Churches Tradition i. e. the testimony of a general Councill informing them what was the Apostles belief or which were the books of Scripture 3. Those points of yours I mentioned cannot be evidenced to be the Apostles belief by the Churches constant tradition you cannot name one Author in every age since the Apostles out of whose writings you can prove that the Apostles maintained those Doctrines which we reject much lesse are you able to tell us of any visible Church or national Councill that will affirm it Concil Const Sess 13. The Councill of Constance acknowledgeth that Christ administred the Sacrament under both kinds and that the Primitive Christians did receive it under both kinds Can we then think that the Apostles thought communion under both kinds unlawfull How then durst he so administer it Was his practise contrary to his belief This would be a great wickedness not to be imagined of an Apostle 4. We approve of the Churches tradition as a witness of what the Apostles believed but only in subserviency to Scripture which doth principally discover what was the Apostles belief if your Councills had told us that the Apostles administred not the Sacrament in both kinds or that they allowed of prayers in an unknown tongue we would not beleeve your Councills because the Scripture speaks contrary to them and
liberty of interpretation absolutely but as to such times and places and there is none of us pleads for private mens interpretation of Scripture publickly 4. You confound construction of Law by right reason and by corrupt affection this latter no man that hath right reason can plead for in the behalf of any people for indeed that would bring confusion but the former cannot be denyed to any for the Law is founded upon right reason and so far as this takes place the expounding of the Law cannot be prejudicial to any Commonwealth though it be done by private persons 2. You infer If this be true as it is what an undervaluing must it be of Gods wisdome and providence to think in a Commonwealth of his own immediate establishing as the Church is he hath left indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence they will of his Law Answ 1. We allow not that the sence men give of Scripture should be after their own lusts or wills If any man give a sence contrary to the mind of God it deserves to be rejected God hath not left to any one man much lesse indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence he will of Gods Law The Pope can no more claim that liberty than the meanest Laick and therefore you either play the fool or worse to disprove a liberty which no Protestant in the World pleads for 2. Yet I say God hath not left any of his children without means in the use whereof they may attain to know what is the Will of God in his Word Rom. 12.2 Indeed God hath set certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence his Law but this is not opposite to private study and meditation in Gods Law the very principal charecter of a blessed man Psal 1. and 119. and is not study and meditation in Gods Law in order to the interpretation of it The Saints of God have earnestly studied Gods Law Yet this was never thought to tend to bring the peace and safety of the Church into danger of shipwrack nor to be the source of jars and garboils of Seperatists as you wickedly suggest Misapplying and wresting of Scripture may have those effects you speak of but what is this to the reading and right interpretation of it Your reason for this your unsavory speech is say you clear because all men are not apt to understand alike for being for the most part of different tempers and composures they have various fancies which of necessity will beget a diversity of understanding Answ 1. You are Aesops man qui ex uno ore calidum promis frigidum in your fourth Chapter you proved the Churches infallibility by this argument viz. that it was framed up of men of several Nations different tempers and interests therefore neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves and posterity with a lye p. 15 16. But here the same argument proves the Churches fallibility the fruit of diversity of understanding 2. I say If Christians were considerable only as men of different tempers and composures as you represent them and that their different tempers and composures were the directive causes of understanding I beleeve what you say of seperatists would be true of all Christians yea of all men in the World and there would be nothing but jars and garboils in every place Yea it may as truly be said of your great Rabbies the only interpreters of Scripture for are not they of different tempers and composures and so according to your doctrine have various fancies which of necessity must beget a diversity of understanding If you answer that these have the Spirit of God to guid them in understanding I reply so have all true Christians as I have already proved I deny not but there is corruption in the best and darknesse in their understandings they but see through a glasse and that darkly and therefore may mistake a wrong exposition sometimes for a true one and thus it is not only with Luther Zuinglius Calvin whose names will survive Romes obloquy and reproach of them but with your own Doctors whose expositions are not always the same But we must believe if we will that only schismatical Protestants such as Luther Zuinglius Calvin have different understandings and expositions of Scripture for say you they made no lesse then three contrary and repugnant senses of those plain words this is my body this is my blood p. 70. Answ 1. You tell us not what these three contrary and repugnant sences are and I am perswaded they may easily be reduced to two for though Luther and Zuinglius differed about the sence of the words yet I find not that Calvin and Zuinglius did and I rather think they did not for the opinion that some appropriate to Zuinglius Bellarmine chargeth upon Calvin in these words Bellarmine saith the opinion of Calvin reverâ nihil differt a sententia Zuinglii de Ludib lib. 1. c. 1. Haeresis erat c. It was the Heresie of some that the Eucharist was onely a figure of Christs body this Heresie doth Calvin teach 2. If the words be so plain how comes it that Papists do so much differ in their Expositions of them every word almost brings variety of Popish sences If we were to learn what the Pronoun This the very first of those pain words means we might go unsatisfied away for any resolution we should have from you One tells us it signifies Nothing another The Bread presently to be transubstantiate A third an individuum vagum contained under the forms of Bread A fourth the Body of Christ And now Sir I dare be bold to say that there is less agreement amongst Popish Expositors who yet profess to follow the Church in all their Expositions then amongst Luther Zuinglius and Calvin There being but three rather two Expositions of these words given by Protestants whereas there is at least four amongst Papists of one of the words For conclusion you bring us in objecting for our selves thus Those selected Persons intrusted with the administring and dispensing of the Lawes utter by mouth what they understand and they understand no more then what their private reading and reasoning are able to inform them so that even this way men would be to seek To this you answer 1. Judges have not onely their reading and reasoning to inform and direct them but likewise the practice of former Courts from the very promulgation of the Law at which time the sence and meaning of the same was declared by the Law-makers themselves Reply 1. You unlearnedly distinguish betwixt their reading and their knowledge of the practice of former Courts as if the practice of former Courts were not known by reading whereas you cannot mention any other means thereof unless you can make out a constant unwritten Tradition from the Lawmakers themselves which hath been propogated from one to another and the particular cases of former Courts have been so various
us Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles Surely he hath born our griefs carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed All which refer to this state of humiliation from which we have long since passed I would have L. B. or any Papist to shew me what benefit we have by these sufferings or how they tend to our redemption and salvation When dogs cats mice eat and tare in pieces Christ's body or a weak stomackt Priest spues up the body of Christ into some filthy place are we advantaged hereby or can we glory in these sufferings in this Cross of Christ 2. There may be other things infer'd as 1. That the Priest that either through negligence suffers Christs body to be torn in pieces of dogs cats mice or that willingly deliver it to wicked men and miscreants is a Judas a betrayer of Christ and you may know him by his sop dipt in the wine which none of the people partake of 2. That the Jews and heathenish Romans were more mercifull to Christ then the present Priests and Pharisees of Rome Antichristian Those delivered him into the hands of men these give him into the mouths of dogs cats mice Those preserved him whole not breaking a bone of him these tare him in pieces by wild beasts Those gave him an honourable interment He made his grave with the rich these buried him in the bellyes of beasts or cast him into the draught 2. I come to shew the contrariety of this Doctrine to Scripture 1. Some Scriptures affirm that Christ is in Heaven and must be contained there till the restitution of all things Acts 3.21 That the Apostle Heb. 9.24 gives the reason of it He is entred into Heaven it â—elf now to appear in the presence of God for us which is the work of the High Priest within the vaile and Primasius to this purpose saith Introire autem Iesum c. We say that Jesus is entred into Heaven according to his Manhood Primas apud Lyr. in Heb. 9.12 for as God he is every where Again Joh. 16.28 I come forth from the Father and am come into the world again I leave the world and go to the Father If you ask how he left the world the Interlineary truely tells you he did it Corporali discessione non gubernatiâ—ne presentiae By a removall of his body c. He speaks of his local removing not of his lying hid in the world Indeed ver 16. he speaks of his invisibility A little while and ye shall not see me but the reason was not because he would goe up and downe hid under the forms and species of bread and wine but because he went to the Father as Theophilact from the Text doth truely note Yea further we finde the Scripture expresly denying his presence on earth and that by a weightie reason Heb. 8.4 If he were on earth he should not be a Priest is he could not perform all the rites of his Priesthood For some of them require his presence in the Holy of Holies and there he could not be if he were on earth this is clearly the Apostles Argument Christ could not be in the state of humiliation and exaltation at one and the same time if he be in that state he is not in that too 2. We finde the Scriptures expresly denying that Christs corporall presence is in divers places at once Matth. 28.6 He is not here for he is risen which were no reason if your Doctrine were good for he might be there and risen too To conclude there is not any part of Gods Word which gives the least countenance or incouragement to this Popish absurditie You answer The Word of God is plain and express for the presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and consequently in many places at once Reply You truly infer that if Christs body be really present in the Sacrament it must needs be in many places at once but this presence is not plainly and expresly delivered in Scripture The word This is my body which you mention do neither plainly nor expresly deliver it There are two things oppose your exposition of those words 1 The judgement of Fathers Tertul. lib. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. L. 3. c. 19. Theod. Dial. 1. 2. Aug. c. 12. contr Adimant Ep. 23. ad Bonif Concil Carth. 3. Can. 24. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. Vasq in 3. part Thom. disp 180. t. 5. Cajet in 3. Thom. q. 75. Schoolmen and others Tertullian Theodoret and Augustine understand the words figuratively The third Councill of Carthage saith that here is in the Sacraments no more offered to God than bread and wine mingled with water c. Scotus affirms Non exstare c. That there is not any place of Scripture so express that without the Churches Declaration it can evidently compell us to admit Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether improbable Yea Vasques further tells us that Scotus affirmed That the truth of these words of Consecration may be retained although the substance of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist and blames certain professours of Divinitie that side with him and in speciall Cardinall de Alliaio for affirming that this way is possible and neither contrary to reason nor the authority of Scriptures yea its easier to be understood and more rationall than any other of this judgement is also Cajetan 2. Reason which teacheth first that neither one desperate can predicate of another i. e. as you express it when two distinct things of different kinds are affirmed of each other which you say cannot be true nor one thing of it self in the same consideration or respect and whereas you say that the body of Christ out of the Sacrament before the words began is affirmed to be in the Sacrament after they are ended This is not plainly or expresly delivered in the words of Christ for he must either have said That which was my body before the Sacrament is now my body in the Sacrament or this was my body before the Sacrament In saying This and is he informs us that he speaks of the Subject in its present capacity and therefore some by This understand Bread which is most agreeable to the context Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my body That which Christ took blessed brake and gave to them was Bread 1 Cor. 10.16 Now this is predicated improperly of Christs body Thus Christ is called a Doore John 10.7 a Rocke 1 Cor. 10.4 Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 The Sacramentall Cup is called the New Testament in Christs blood Luk. 22.20 I pray satisfie me what may be the reason why
those according to him are religious persons Who devote their whole lives to Gods worship whence it is clear that he makes no difference betwixt religious and Divine worship Again Grotius defining religious worship H. Grot. de relig Chr. L. 4. p. 191. page 195. saith Cultus religiosus c. Religious worship is nothing else but an attestation of that chief goodness which thou acknowledgest in him thou worshippest Now in God onely there is Summa bonitas he onely being the Summum bonum Of this religious worship the same Author further speaks telling us what are its chief acts viz. Prayers which saith he cannot be used unless foolishly but to intelligent natures Now Images Reliqus Altars the Name Jesus are not intelligent natures To this I will add That there are two main grounds of religious worship 1 Infinite excellency apprehended under the notion of the Prime Principle Manifestum est quod dominium convenit Deo secundum propriam singularē quandā rationē quia scil ipse omnia fecit quia sūmū in omnibus rebus obtinet principatum Et ideo specialis ratio servitutis ei debetur et talis servitus nomine Latriae designatur apud Graecos Et ideo ad religionem proprie pertinet Et paulo post Quia tamen specialis honor debetur Deo tanquam primo omnium principio etiam specialis ratio cultus ei debetur quae Graeco nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocatur Aquin. supr August tract 23. Joan. or first Originall This is fully expressed by Aquinas who affirms that in regard of Gods supreme dominion founded upon his being the first Originall and cause of all things therefore a speciall kind of service is due to him which service properly belongs to Religion and is sometimes called Latria and sometime Eusebia which together will make up your phrase Religious worship 2 Infinite excellency apprehended under the notion of the chief good or the fountain of happiness Thus Augustine Haec est religio Christiana c. This is the Christian Religion that nothing be worshipped but One God because none maks the soul happy but one God Religious worship therefore is proper to God the prime principle and last good and therefore the giving of it to any but God is forbidden in this Commandement as Idolatry Reply 3. It s not certain that the Pagans did make gods of their graven things or if some did many others did not Dionysius Carthusiensis saith Quidam Gentilium c. Dionys Comment in Rom. 1. Some of the Pagans did worship the very Images but others did onely worship the things represented by the Images The Apostle professeth that the Gentiles knew God onely they changed his Glory into an Image made like unto corruptible man c. which you also doe whilest you change Gods unexpressible glory into the Image of an old man and the glory of the Holy Ghost into the image of a fowl and Christ of a yong man and thus worship them or if they gave them divine honour do not some of you plead Aquin. 3. q. 25. Art 3. 4. Cà ssand consult de imag p. 979. Act. 17.23 that the cross of Christ and his Image should have the same honour I am sure Cassander blames Aquinas for this opinion But to return the wiser sort of Pagans acknowledged One onely God yea the generality of them acknowledged one only Supreme whom either they called Jove as some think from Jehovah or the unknown God Who was the same that the Apostle Paul preacht at Athens and although they had others whom they worshipped yet these were rather Daemones than dii middle natures between the immortall Gods and mortall men imployed by them for carrying mortalls prayers to God and Gods rewards to men and their acknowledgement of these was only that their perfections and excellencies were participated and relative to the Supreme God or some other Athanas orat contra Gentes Arnob. l. 6. advers Gentes Read to this purpose that learned piece of Mr. Mede called the Apostacy of the later times Yea further when the Christians did object against Pagans their idol worship they still pleaded their respect to the gods whom their idols did represent But I come to examine your vindication of Rome from idolatry in those above mentioned particulars viz. Mass c. 1 Mass You say Her adoration at Mass being not meant nor directed to the accidents of bread and wine nor to the figures of Host and Chalice next to sight for in these she doth not acknowledge to be the perfections of Exellencies belonging to God but to the Person of Christ hid and covered under the said accidents and figures Reply 1. You grant that the Worship you call divine is used at the Mass onely you plead that it s not directed to the accidents of bread and and wine c. but to the Person of Christ c. Bellarm. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. You may with this plea give Divine Worship to Images Altars Reliques yea the Pagans might have this plea yet were idolatrous 2. You differ from your Schoolmen yea and Church too Bellarmine says That Christ per se proprie is to be worshipped with the adoration of Latria and that this adoration belongeth to the signes or symbols of bread and wine in as much as they are apprehended as one with Christ whom they contain Conformably hereunto the Councel of Trent saith Ther remains no doubt but that all Christs faithful people give the Worship of Latria which is due to the true God to the Sacrament in their adoration because they believe God is present in it So that either your Church is idolatrous or your selfe not sufficiently religious Besides in your Sacramental language you speak of a Transubstantiation of the bread not into Christs Person but his Body So that its the Body of Christ you worship for this is under the accidents of figures Now the perfections and exellencies belonging to God which might command from us Latria are no more in Christs body then in the accidents of bread and wine there being an infinite distance between the exellencies and perfections of the Deity and Christs humanity This is not Primum rerum principium as that is 3. This Adoration is without any precept or example in Scripture where the Sacrament is fully expressed 4. Papists use it without doubting as whether the bread be rightly consecrated and so whether the Body of Christ be present or no in the Sacrament Hence that Lesson of Pope Arian 6. teaching to say Adoro te si tu es Christus I adore thee if thou be Christ That there ought to be a condition is the judgement of Gabriel Biel Thomas Bonaventure Alexander Azor. instit moral p. 1. l. 9. c. 9. q. 10 Albertus Richardus and seems to be the common opinion of all Divines saith Azorius Which condition makes Images Reliques Altars yea the heathenish idols the Subjects of
and originally in God as Lord paramount of all creatures but not incommunicable for as he hath bestowed the power of governing Kingdomes and Common-wealths on Kings and Magistrates Prov. 8.15 Rom. 13.1 So the power of remitting sins on the Apostles and their successours yet men having these powers by way of gift and participation may not be said to govern or to forgive sins but as Gods substitutes and delegates suitably to the condition of their inferiority and subjection Reply 1. Gods power as to some of its acts is incommunicable His power of Creation is naturally in him and incommunicable to any creature so is his damning and saving power whereby he makes one a vessell of wrath another of mercy of this nature is his power of remitting sin It is God that justifies and it was a serious question though wrongly applied of the Scribes Who can forgive sins but God only Mark 2.7 others cannot do it and therefore Bed doth hereby prove Christs divinitâ— saith he Solus Dâ—us remittit peccata c. Bed apud Lyran ib i.e. God onely remits sins and the Son of man hath power of remiting sin therefore God and the Son of man are the same thus the Son of man by his divinity doth remit sins but by his humanity he is enabled to dy for sinners For the clearing of this I observe that remission of sins may be considered two wayes viz. 1. As it is a judiciall act and denotes formall pardon Thus it belongs to the supreme Lord against whom the crâ—mes are directly committed and his absolution is onely satisfactory to the offender as Soto on Rom. 8.33 very well shewes 2. As it is a Declaration of that act already passed by the supreme Lord. As in human Courts the judiciall act or formall absolution belongs to the Judge but the declaration of this is in the crier 'T is thus in the Church The Church is the crier but God the Judge his act is an act of power and authority whereby Pardon is formally obtained but so is not theirs This is confessed by the most noted Schoolmen Lombard is clear for it Ita operatur sacerdos Evangelicus c. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 18. F. The Evangelicall Priest saith he doth so act and judge in the absolving from sin as the legall Priest did on them that had the Leprosie Now its evident that the Priest did not make them clean but onely upon Gods cleansing of them declared them to be clean nor is this the judgement of him onely but of many other Schoolmen and Lombard proves it from Hierom and Ambrose Now if the Church of Rome not content with the act of declaring sin pardoned do in a Pharasaicall pride as Lombard speaks claim to it self a judiciall power which Ambrose calls jus potestatis then it s certainly true that the Romane Church claims a power that belongs onely to God But it s certainly true that this Church claims a power the Trent Councill is clear and full for it Concil Trid sess 14. cap. 6. Can. 9. ap Binnium So that she Anathematizeth whosoever shall say that is no judiciall act but onely an office of pronouncing and declaring that sins are pardoned to the penitent sinner This is that we charge upon your Church as an hereticall opinion What you say in answer to our Objection I know not whether it be in vindication of your Church or in meer opposition to us you have so darkly folded up your opinion that I know not what it is You say The successours of the Apostles have power to forgive sins as Gods substitutes and delegates suitably to the condition of their inferioritie and subjection You should have told us what this suitable power is for the power your Church claims is not a suitable power for her even in the judgement of your Schoolmen And if you deny her that you confess with us that she claims a power that belongs onely to God Your allusion is nothing unless you can prove that as God hath bestowed power of governing on Kings so hath he given the Apostles and their successours the power of formall remission 4. Objection THe fourth Objection is The Roman Church derogateth from Christs Mediatorship making it common to Saints and Angels Answ 1. Things that are like have eftsoons the same denomination so Kings and Judges are called Gods for some resemblance betwixt Gods power and theirs Psal 81.1.6 The Roman Church then observing in the intercession of Saints and Angels a certain likeness to the mediation of Christ they being both expressions of charitable and good desires for others may not unfitly call them alike by the name of mediation Reply 1. That things that are like have sometime the same denomination none will question but the ground of this is not alwayes likness or resemblance as you seem to assert different things altogether unlike may have the same denomination whilest those that have some likeness cannot The children of God who have his Image and are partaker of the divine nature are not to be called Gods though Magistrates are Psal 82. There are two reasons or grounds whereupon the names of God or Christ may be given to creatures 1. Relation the persons stand in unto God and Christ thus Judges are called Gods and Moses is said to be a God to Pharaoh Exod. 7.1 because Judges and Moses stood in Gods stead were his Vice-royes his Ambassadours 2. Divine authoritie seconding the relation I have said ye are Gods and all of you the children of the most High c. Psal 82.6.105 15. God saith of his children Touch not my Christs Now according as God gives these names to creatures so may we provided that we give them 1. Onely to those to whom he gives them 2. That we give them not to any as properly belonging to them but onely as metaphoricall expressions 3. Nor ordinarily but upon speciall and extraordinary occasions and with allusions to Gods own words Against these the men of Lystra offended when they called Paul and Barnabas Gods Act. 14.1 It s not lawfull for us to give the Title of God to Magistrates ordinarily in our speaking to them nor to say to others ye are Jehovah or Christ or the Evangelicall Priest or Mediator for the reasons now implied The Apostle expresly saith There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.5.2 If likeness ground a denomination yet it remains doubtfull what likeness doth it There is nothing in the world but hath some kind of likeness to God yet you may not call every thing God though it may be this was the manner of the Heathens deifying of every creature till it came to herbes 3. The likeness betwixt the intercession of Saints and Angels supposing these to interceed though you prove it not and mediation of Christ is so little that it cannot be thought a sufficient ground for this denomination What ever you can say of the intercession of Saints
it is first to be regarded But you reply to this p. 67. As Scripture so what it contains would be as to belief hid and unknown but for the Churches information Answ This hath been formerly confuted Scripture gives a firmer and more convincing testimony to it self then men can give to it The efficacy of the word in the heart of him that reads and meditates in it is more powerfull to perswade him that its the Word of God then a 1000 Fathers or Popes the same may be said of the truth contained in it When the error of administring the Sacrament of the Supper was the Doctrine of the Church I appeal to any man to tell me whether the Scripture would not have manifested what was truth better then Pope Innocentius or any of his erring nephewes I 'm sure the Pope would not have informed what was truth according to Scriptures in that point and yet there were means of finding out the truth else all his Proselites had erred with him which would be dangerous to affirm It is the Scripture that declares and manifests the Church and therefore must be more mafest than the Church But you prove it thus The knowledge faith requires must be supernaturally certain and consequently an effect of the Holy Ghosts pâ—culiar assistance which is onely warranted to the Church and not to every private reading and reasoning Answ If you speak of the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance we grant the Apostles had it and therefore their knowledge was certain and their writings we ground our faith upon but this assistance is not now given to any You plead but for the Holy Ghosts peculiar assistance how this is warranted not onely to the Church but to private Christians For first Christ promiseth it to them Jer. 31.34 and assures them God will give it them if they ask Luke 11.13 2. Christ invites them to seek it Apoc. 3.18 3. The Apostle affirms that private Christians have it 1 John 2.27 The pride of Popish Prelates is intollerable they forsooth and none else have the peculiar assistance of Gods spirit to enlighten them Poore Christians must be robd of their spirituall Pastor that Popish Priests may be the onely teachers But I think your conscience struck you when you were penning this sentence and therefore to evade it in stead of saying Not to provide persons you say not to every private reading or reasoning which makes as much against your Popes and Priests as private Christians if those do ever reade and reason in private I grant that the Spirit is not given to every private person in every reading and reasoning No more as I said is he given to every or any Pope in every private reading or reasoning When the Pope speaks not ex Cathedra he 's as subject to ignorance and error as the poorest Christian and may erre by your own confession and he 's not alwayes in his chair But I dare affirm that private Christians in their serious reading of Gods Word joyned with Prayer and diligence may expect the peculiar assistance of God to lead them into the knowledge of Gods truth this is clearly promised Psal 25.9.12.14 upon our asking of him James 1.5 If any man want wisedom Spiritum illuminatorem saith the gloss Let him ask it of God c. The Psalmist prayeth that God would open his eyes that he may understand wonderfull things of Gods Law so should private Christians do through the want of spirit the Jews though they read the Scriptures they understand them not the vail is upon their eyes but it is to be done away in Christ by the Spirit of the Lord. Here is not a word of the Churches taking away this vail 2. You prove it by S. Paul S. Paul is plain Let men esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and dispensers of Gods mysteries 1 Cor. 4. Answ The words indeed are plain and easy to be understood but I know not how they make for you they do not prove that the Apostles had the peculiar assistance of Gods Spirit much less do they prove that private Christians are not capable of it All that they prove is this that the Corinthians ought not to contemn or vilifie Paul or any but account of them according to their calling as Christs servants and dispensers of divine mysteries 3. You prove it by experience saying Experience confirms no less in Seperatists who laying aside the Church and presuming upon their own readings and reasonings have vented as many absurd and extravagant impieties as they had base and exorbitant passions p. 68. A. 1. When men presume upon their readins and raesonings without having respect to the Spirit of God it 's no wonder if they err Reason is no sufficient guide in exposition of Scripture Flesh and blood reveals it not to us but the Spirit Hence it is that those Heretiques in Jude are noted by their want of the Spirit and this was the cause of their erring 2. The Church never put forth any Publike Commentary whereby the sense of Scripture might appear and therefore the Churches Exposition is a meer Chimera Suppose a Christian should desire to acquaint himself with Scripture as that which you say contains part of Gods Will but he dares not venture upon it himself and therefore desires to be guided by the Churches Exposition now he knows not where to meet with it I pray Sir could you direct him where he might find it The Fathers do not all of them alwayes agree and he finds their Expositions often rejected by your learned Doctors and somtimes they deserve not to be received Your Doctors of the Church are as different in their Expositions as can be as that Text of James some understand it of Extream Unction others deny that Extream Unction can be proved by it and for your Popes they seldome expound Scripture and when they do it their Expositions are oft irrational as that of Rom. 8.6 by Lyricus and seldom obvious In this case either the study of Scripture must be quite laid aside or else there must be some other guide thought of besides the Church which can be no other then the Spirit of God by which we are enabled to judg which is the true sense of Scripture Vid Can. loc Theol. l. 7. c. 3. Cajetan seems to approve of this when he adviseth that no man dislike a new sense of Scripture because it dissents from Ancient Fathers for God hath not confined the Exposition of Scripture to their sences but to Scripture it self Which way of finding out the sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another is done by the help of Gods Spirit principally though the advise of Pastors may come secondarily in as subservient thereunto 3. Those who have cried up the Church as some of them vented as absurd and extravagant impieties as any Schismatique What more absurd and extravagant Exposition can there be then that of Lyricus on Rom. 8. They that are married cannot