them concluded and both of them wrote Books to maintain their Opinions and both of their Books were published by Authority And therefore I think 't is allowed in the Church of Rome to private men to express your Catholike Doctrine and in a matter subject to Question And therefore also if another man in the Church of England should be of a contrary Opinion to M. Rogers and declare it under the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England this were no more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome And I for my part cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it For he says that for ought he knows private men are not allowed so to express their Catholike Doctrine And in the same Question both Catharinus and Bellarmine take on them to express your Catholike Faith the one differing from the other almost as much as Soto and Vega and perhaps in some respect more F. But if M. Rogers be only a private man in what Book may we find the Protestants publike Doctrine The Bishop answered That to the Book of Articles they were all sworn B. § 14 Num. 1 What Was I so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all the Protestants Or that all the Protestants were sworn to the Articles of England as this speech seems to imply Sure I was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the Subject of the Speech to be varied in the next lines Nor yet speak I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines and in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions But if A. C. will say as he doth that because there was speech before of the Church of England the Jesuite understood me in a limited sense and meant only the Protestants of the English Church Be it so there 's no great harm done but this that the Jesuite offers to inclose me too much For I did not say that the Book of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine She is not so narrow nor hath she purpose to exclude any thing which she acknowledges hers nor doth she wittingly permit any Crossing of her publike Declarations yet she is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her Blessing or Denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation as your own School-men differ And if the Church of Rome since she grew to her greatness had not been so fierce in this Course and too particular in Determining too many things and making them matters of Necessary Belief which had gone for many hundreds of years before only for things of Pious Opinion Christendom I perswade my self had been in happier peace at this Day than I doubt we shall ever live to see it Num. 2 Well But A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew and such a Shrew For in her Book of Canons She excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon nor perhaps the sense Not the Words for they are Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious c. And perhaps not the sense For it is one thing for a man to hold an Opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publikely to affirm it And again 't is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article which perhaps may be but in the manner of Expression and another thing positively to affirm that the Articles in any part of them are superstitious and erroneous But this is not the Main of the Business For though the Church of England Denounce Excommunication as is before expressed Yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome's severity whose Anathema's are not only for 39 Articles but for very many more above one hundred in matters of Doctrine and that in many Poynts as far remote from the Foundation though to the far greater Rack of mens Consciences they must be all made Fundamental if that Church have once Determined them whereas the Church of England never declared That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith For 't is one thing to say No one of them is superstitious or erroneous And quite another to say Every one of them is fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens Belief Besides the Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable Consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole World under pain of Damnation F. And that the Scriptures only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. § 15 Num. 1 The Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And here not the Church of England only but all Protestants agree most truly and most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the School-men not strangers in it And have not we reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himself though an angry Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimony and in the matter or thing to be believed And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which we are to go for witness if there be Doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed as necessary in the Faith we never did nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Universal and Apostolike for the better Exposition of the Scripture nor any Definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what she teaches and thrusts nothing as Fundamental in the Faith upon the world but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam Credendorum the substance of that which is so to be believed whether immediately and expresly in words or more remotely where a clear and full Deduction draws it out Num. 2 Against the beginning of this Paragraph A. C. excepts And first he says 'T is true that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture That is 't is true if themselves may be competent Judges in their own Cause But this by the leave of A. C. is true without making our selves Judges in our own Cause For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of
not obvious to every eye there And that this is S. Augustine's meaning is manifest by himself who best knew it For when he had said as he doth That to baptize children is Antiqua fidei Regula the Ancient Rule of Faith and the constant Tenet of the Church yet he doubts not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also For when Pelagius urged That Infants needed not to be baptized because they had no Original Sin S. Augustine relies not upon the Tenet of the Church only but argues from the Text thus What need have Infants of Christ if they be not sick For the sound need not the Physitian S. Mat. 9. And again is not this said by Pelagins ut non accedaent ad Jesum That Infants may not come to their Saviour Sed clamat Jesus but Jesus cries out Suffer Little ones to come unto me S. Mar. 10. And all this is fully acknowledged by Calvine Namely That all men acknowledge the Baptism of Infants to descend from Apostolical Tradition And yet that it doth not depend upon the bare and naked Authority of the Church Which he speaks not in regard of Tradition but in relation to such proof as is to be made by necessary Consequence out of Scripture over and above Tradition As for Tradition I have said enough for that and as much as A. C. where 't is truly Apostolical And yet if any thing will please him I will add this concerning this particular The Baptizing of Infants That the Church received this by Tradition from the Apostles By Tradition And what then May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture because it was delivered to the Church by way of Tradition I hope A. C. will never say so For certainly in Doctrinal things nothing so likely to be a Tradition Apostolical as that which hath a root and a Foundation in Scripture For Apostles cannot write or deliver contrary but subordinate and subservient things F. I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are balieved to be Scripture yet not proved out of any Place of Scripture The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be proved B. § 16 Num. 1 I did never love too curious a search into that which might put a man into a wheel and circle him so long between proving Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture till the Devil find a means to dispute him into Infidelity and make him believe neither I hope this is no part of your meaning Yet I doubt this Question How do you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harm than you will be ever able to help by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted upon by you and is in it self a matter of such Consequence I will sift it a little farther Num. 2 Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Divinity have used divers means to prove it All have not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolve Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into only Tradition For only and no other proof are equal To prove the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God there are several Offers at divers proofs For first some fly to the Testimony and witness of the Church and her Tradition which constantly believes and unanimously delivers it Secondly some to the Light and the Testimony which the Scripture gives to it self with other internal proofs which are observed in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoever Thirdly some to the Testimony of the Holy Ghost which clears up the light that is in Scripture and seals this Faith to the Souls of men that it is Gods Word Fourthly all that have not imbrutished themselves and sunk below their species and order of Nature give even Natural Reason leave to come in and make some proof and give some approbation upon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments And this must be admitted if it be but for Pagans and Insidels who either consider not or value not any one of the other three yet must some way or other be converted or left without excuse Rom. 1. and that is done by this very evidence Num. 3 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church which is your way That taken and considered alone it is so far from being the only that it cannot be a sufficient Proof to believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God For that which is a full and sufficient proof is able of it self to settle the Soul of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to do this For it may be further asked Why we should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered We may believe Because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded of you How that may appear And if this be demanded either you must say you have it by special Revelation which is the private Spirit you object to other men or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture as all of you do And that very offer to prove it out of Scripture is a sufcient acknowledgment that the Scripture is a higher Proof than the Churches Tradition which in your Grounds is or may be Questionable till you come thither Besides this is an Inviolable ground of Reason That the Principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit than the Conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles of Faith The Trinity the Resurrection and the rest be the Conclusions and the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible than the Articles of the Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally Resolved into the Veracity of the Churches Testimony But this your Learned and wary men deny And therefore I hope your self dare not affirm Num. 4 Again if the Voyce of the Church saying the Books of Scripture commonly received are the Word of God be the formal Object of Faith upon which alone absolutely I may resolve my self then every man not only may but ought to resolve his Faith into the Voyce or Tradition of the Church for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and formal Object of the Faith But nothing can be more evident than this That a man ought not to resolve his Faith of this Principle into the sole Testimony of the Church Therefore neither is that Testimony or Tradition alone the formal Object of Faith The Learned of your own part grant this Although in that Article of the Creed I believe the Catholike Church
peradventure all this be contained I believe those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily understood That I believe the Church teaching as an Infallible Witness And if they did not confess this it were no hard thing to prove Num. 5 But her'e 's the cunning of this Devise All the Authorities of Fathers Councels nay of Scripture too though this be contrary to their own Doctrine must be finally Resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own Writings or the Decrees of Councels because as they say we cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church reaching by Tradition Now by this two things are evident First That they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholike Church as they do to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Society of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in All things that any Part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the Whole Secondly that in their Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of their Church their proceeding is most unreasonable For if you ask them Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith Their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Word of God and the Doctrine and Tradition of the Ancient Church If you ask them How they know that to be so They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture Councels and Fathers But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that these Testimonies do indeed make for them and their Cause They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture or Exposition of Fathers or Phrase and propriety of Languagâ— in which either of them were first written or to the scope of the Author or the Causes of the thing uttered or the Conference with like Places or the Antecedents and Consequents of the same Places or the Exposition of the dark and doubtful Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of Scripture which do frequently occur in S. Augustine No none of these or the like helps That with them were to admit a Private Spirit or to make way for it But their final Answer is They know it to be so because the present Roman Church witnesseth it according to Tradition So arguing â— primo ad ultimum from first to last the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her own Doctrine and Tradition to be true and Catholike because she professes it to be such And if this be not to prove idem per idem the same by the same I know not what is which though it be most absurd in all kind of Learning yet out of this I see not how 't is possible to winde themselves so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest as they teach upon the Tradition of the present Church only Num. 6 It seems therefore to me very necessary that we be able to prove the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine For if they be warranted unto us by any Authority less than Divine then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Objects of Divine belief And that once granted will enforce us to yield That all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance than Humane or Moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility at least in the last Resolution of our Faith in that Point This Authority cannot be any Testimony or Voice of the Church alone For the Church consists of men subject to Error And no one of them since the Apostles times hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the Blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived And all the Parts being all liable to mistaking and fallible the Whole cannot possibly be Infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some Things or other And even in those Fundamental Things in which the Whole Universal Church neither doth nor can Erre yet even there her Authority is not Divine because She delivers those supernatural Truths by Promise of Assistance yet tyed to Means And not by any special immediate Revelation which is necessarily required to the very least Degree of Divine Authority And therefore our Worthies do not only say but prove That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of Humane Law And some among you not unworthy for their Learning prove it at large That all the Churches Testimony or Voyce or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Divine Yea and A. C. himself after all his debate comes to that and no further That the Tradition of the Church is at least in some sort Divine and Infallible Now that which is Divine but in a sort or manner be it the Churches manner is aliquo modo non Divina in a sort not Divine But this Great Principle of Faith the Ground and Proof of whatsoever else is of Faith cannot stand firm upon a Proof that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Divine As it must if we have no other Anchor than the External Tradition of the Church to lodge it upon and hold it steddy in the midst of those waves which daily beat upon it Num. 7 Now here A. C. confesses expresly That to prove the Books of Scripture to be Divine we must be warranted by that which is Infallible He confesses farther that there can be no sufficient Infallible Proof of this but Gods Word written or unwritten And he gives his Reason for it Because if the Proof be meerly Humane and Fallible the Science or Faith which is built upon it can be no better So then this is agreed on by me yet leaving other men to travel by their own way so be they can come to make Scripture thereby Infallible That Scripture must be known to be Scripture by a sufficient Infallible Divine Proof And that such Proof can be nothing but the Word of God is agreed on also by me Yea and agreed on for me it shall be likewise that Gods Word may be written and unwritten For Cardinal Bellarmine tells us truly that it is not the writing or printing that make Scripture the Word of God but it is the Prime Unerring Essential Truth God himself uttering and revealing it to his Church that makes it Verbum Dei the Word of God And this Word of
till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And animalis homo the natural man sees some Light of Moral counsel and instruction in Scripture as well as Believers But he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-light and cannot distinguish between the Sun and twelve to the Pound till Tradition of the Church and Gods Grace put to it have cleared his understanding So Tradition of the present Church is the first Moral Motive to Belief But the Belief it self That the Scripture is the Word of God rests upon the Scripture when a man finds it to answer and exceed all that which the Church gave in Testimony as will after appear And as in the Voyce of the Primitive and Apostolical Church there was simply Divine Authority delivering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soul the Voyce of God i◠plainly heard in Scripture it self And then here 's double Authority and both Divine that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it And the internal worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a Soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace Num. 22 The Difficulties which are pretended against this are not many and they will easily vanish For first you pretend we go to Private Revelations for Light to know Scripture No we do not you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question and we go to the Tradition of the present Church and by it as well as you Here we differ we use the Tradition of the present Church as the first Motive not as the Last Resolution of our Faith We Resolve only into Prime Tradition Apostolical and Scripture it self Num. 23 Secondly you pretend we do not nor cannot know the prime Apostolical Tradition but by the Tradition of the present Church and that therefore if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods unwritten Word and Divine we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture by a Divine Authority Well I Suppose I could not know the prime Tradition to be Divine but by the present Church yet it doth not follow that therefore I cannot know Scripture to be the Word of God by a Divine Authority because Divine Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove it For suppose I had not nor could have full assurance of Apostolical Tradition Divine yet the moral perswasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough to move any reasonable man that it is fit he should read the Scripture and esteem very reverently and highly of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and Home-Arguments enough to put a Soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of Doubt That Scripture is the Word of God Infallible and Divine Num. 24 Thirdly you pretend that we make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be known Lumine suo by the Light and Testimony which it hath in and gives to it self Against this you give reason for your selves and proof from us Your Reason is If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it self then every man that can and doth but read it may know it presently to be the Divine Word of God which we see by daily experience men neither do nor can First it is not absolutely nor universally true There is sufficient Light therefore every man may see it Blinde men are men and cannot see it and sensual men in the Apostles judgment are such Nor may we deny and put out this Light as insufficient because blind eyes cannot and perverse eyes will not see it no more than we may deny meat to be sufficient for nourishment though men that are heart-sick cannot eat it Next we do not say That there is such a full light in Scripture as that every man upon the first sight must yeeld to it such Light as is found in Prime Principles Every whole is greater than a Part of the same and this The same thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect These carry a natural Light with them and evident for the Terms are no sooner understood then the Principles themselves are fully known to the convincing of mans understanding and so they are the beginning of knowledge which where it is perfect dwells in full Light but such a full Light we do neither say is nor require to be in Scripture and if any particular man do let him answer for himself The Question is only of such a Light in Scripture as is of force to breed faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect knowledge Now Faith of whatsoever it is this or other Principle is an Evidence as well as Knowledge and the Belief is firmer than any Knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine Authority which cannot deceive whereas Knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in Deductions from Principles But the Evidence is not so clear For it is of things not seen in regard of the Object and in regard of the Subject that sees it is in aenigmate in a Glass or dark speaking Now God doth not require a full Demonstrative Knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no Light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certain Demonstration as may fit that And for that he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting where the Soul is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church unless you be of Bellarmine's Opinion That to believe there are any Divine Scriptures is not omninò necessary to Salvation Num. 25 The Authority which you pretend against this is out of Hooker Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Books we are bound to esteem Holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach Of this Brierly the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and yet seem well read tell us That Hooker gives a very sensible Demonstration It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his Word for if any one Book of Scripture did give Testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way so that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure c. And this he acknowledgeth saith Brierly is the Authority of Gods Church Certainly Hooker gives a true and a sensible Demonstration but Brierly wants fidelity and integrity in citing him For in the first place Hooker's speech is Scripture it self cannot teach this nor can the Truth say that Scripture it self can It must needs
knowledge And this is it which makes the very entrance into Divinity inaccessible to those men who standing high in the Opinion of their own wisdom will believe nothing but that which is irrefragably proved from Rational Principles For as Christ requires a Denial of a mans self that he may be able to follow him S. Luke 9. So as great a part as any of this Denial of his Whole-self for so it must be is the denial of his Understanding and the composing of the unquiet search of this Grand Inquisitor into the Secrets of Him that made it and the over-ruling the doubtfulness of it by the fervency of the Will. Seventhly That the knowledge of the Supreme Cause of all which is God is most remote and the most difficult thing Reason can have to do with The Quod sit That there is a God blear-eyed Reason can see But the Quid sit what that God is is infinitely beyond all the fathoms of Reason He is a Light indeed but such as no mans Reason can come at for the Brightness 1 Tim. 6. If any thing therefore be attainable in this kind it must be by Revelation And that must be from Himself for none can Reveal but he that Comprehends And none doth or can comprehend God but Himself And when he doth Reveal yet he is no farther discernable than Himself pleases Now since Reason teaches that the Soul of man is immortal and capable of Felicity And since that Felicity consists in the Contemplation of the highest Cause which again is God himself And since Christ therein Confirms that Dictate that mans eternal Happiness is to know God and Him whom he hath sent S. Joh. 17. And since nothing can put us into the way of attaining to that Contemplation but some Revelation of Himself and of the way to Himself I say since all this is so It cannot reasonably be thought by any prudent man that the All-wise God should create man with a desire of Felicity and then leave him utterly destitute of all Instrumental Helps to make the Attainment possible since God and Nature do nothing but for an end And Help there can be none sufficient but by Revelation And once grant me that Revelation is necessary and then I will appeal to Reason it self and that shall prove abundantly one of these two That either there was never any such Revelation of this kind from the worlds beginning to this day And that will put the frustrà upon God in point of mans Felicitie Or that the Scriptures which we now embrace as the Word of God is that Revelation And that 's it we Christians labour to make good against all Atheism Prophaneness and Infidelity Last of all To prove that the Book of God which we honour as His Word is this necessary Revelation of God and his Truth which must and is alone able to lead us in the way to our eternal Blessedness or else the world hath none comes in a Cloud of witnesses Some for the Infidel and some for the Believer Some for the Weak in Faith and some for the Strong And some for all For then first comes in the Tradition of the Church the present Church so 't is no Heretical or Schismatical Belief Then the Testimony of former Ages so 't is no New Belief Then the consent of Times so 't is no Divided or partial Belief Then the Harmony of the Prophets and them fulfilled so 't is not a Devised but a forespoken Belief Then the success of the Doctrine contained in this Book so 't is not a Belief stifled in the Cradle but it hath spread through the world in despite of what the world could do against it And increased from weak and unlikely Beginnings to incredible Greatness Then the Constancie of this Truth so 't is no Moon-Belief For in the midst of the worlds Changes it hath preserved its Creed entire through many generations Then that there is nothing Carnal in the Doctrine so 't is a Chast Belief And all along it hath gained kept and exercised more power upon the minds of men both learned and unlearned in the increase of vertue and repression of vice than any Moral Philosophy or Legal Policie that ever was Then comes the inward Light and Excellencie of the Text it self and so 't is no dark or dazling Belief And 't is an Excellent Text For see the riches of Natural knowledge which are stored up there as well as Supernatural Consider how things quite above Reason consent with things Reasonable Weigh it well what Majesty lies there hid under Humility What Depth there is with a Perspicuity unimitable What Delight it works in the Soul that is devoutly exercised in it how the Sublimist wits find in it enough to amaze them while the ‖ simplest want not enough to direct them And then we shall not wonder if with the assistance of Gods Spirit who alone works Faith and Belief of the Scriptures and their Divine Authority as well as other Articles we grow up into a most Infallible Assurance such an Assurance as hath made many lay down their lives for this Truth such as that Though an Angel from Heaven should Preach unto us another Gospel we would not believe Him or it No though we should see as great and as many Miracles done over again to disswade us from it as were at first to win the world to it To which firmness of Assent by the Operation of Gods Spirit the Will confers as much or more strength than the Understanding Clearness the whole Assent being an Act of Faith and not of Knowledge And therefore the Question should not have been asked of me by F. How I knew But upon what Motives I did believe Scripture to be the word of God And I would have him take heed lest hunting too close after a way of Knowledge he lose the way of Faith and teach other men to lose it too So then the Way lies thus as far as it appears to me The Credit of Scripture to be Divine Resolves finally into that Faith which we have touching God Himself and in the same order For as that so this hath Three main Grounds to which all other are Reducible The first is the Tradition of the Church And this leads us to a Reverend perswasion of it The Second is The Light of Nature and this shews us how necessary such a Revealed Learning is and that no other way it can be had Nay more that all Proofs brought against any Point of Faith neither are nor can be Demonstrations but soluble Arguments The Third is The light of the Text it self in Conversing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God inwardly inclining our hearts and sealing the full Assurance of the sufficiencie of all Three unto us And then and not before we are certain That the Scripture is the Word of God
first known and not need another thing pertaining to that Faith or Knowledge to be known before it But the Scripture saith he needs Tradition to go before it and introduce the knowledge of it Therefore the Scripture is not to be supposed as a Praecognitum and a thing fore-known Truly I am sorry to see in a man very learned such wilful mistakes For A. C. cannot but perceive by that which I have clearly laid down before That I intended not to speak precisely of a Praecognitum in this Argument But when I said Scriptures were Principles to be supposed I did not I could not intend they were prius cognitae known before Tradition since I confess every where That Tradition introduces the knowledge of them But my meaning is plain That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed before you can dispute this Question Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation Before which Question it must necessarily be supposed and granted on both sides That the Scriptures are the Word of God For if they be not 't is instantly out of all Question that They cannot include all Necessaries to Salvation So 't is a Praecognitum not to Tradition as A. C. would cunningly put upon the Cause but to the whole Question of the Scriptures sufficiencie And yet if he could tie me to a Praecognitum in this very Question and proveable in a Superior Science I think I shall go very near to prove it in the next Paragraph and intreat A. C. to confess it too Num. 4 And now having told A. C. this I must secondly follow him a little farther For I would fain make it appear as plainly as in such a difficulty it can be made what wrong he doth Truth and himself in this Case And it is the common fault of them all For when the Protestants answer to this Argument which as I have shew'd can properly have no place in the Question between us about Tradition they which grant this as a Praecognitum a thing fore-known as also I do were neither ignorant nor forgetful That things presupposed as already known in a Science are of two sorts For either they are plain and fully manifest in their own Light or they are proved and granted already some former knowledge having made them Evident This Principle then The Scriptures are the Oracles of God we cannot say is clear and fully manifest to all men simply and in self-Light for the Reasons before given Yet we say after Tradition hath been our Introduction the Soul that hath but ordinary Grace added to Reason may discern Light sufficient to resolve our Faith that the Sun is there This Principle then being not absolutely and simply evident in it self is presumed to be taught us otherwise And if otherwise then it must be taught in and by some superior Science to which Theology is subordinate Now men may be apt to think out of Reverence That Divinity can have no Science above it But your own School teaches me that it hath The sacred Doctrine of Divinity in this sort is a Science because it proceeds out of Principles that are known by the light of a Superior Knowledge which is the Knowledge of God and the Blessed in Heaven In this Superior Science This Principle The Scriptures are the Oracles of God is more than evident in full light This Superior Science delivered this Principle in full revealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles This Infâ—llible Light of this Principle made their Authority derivatively Divine By the same Divine Authority they wrote and delivered the Scripture to the Church Therefore from them immediately the Church received the Scripture and that uncorrupt though not in the same clearness of Light which they had And yet since no sufficient Reason hath or can be given that in any Substantial thing it hath been Corrupted it remains firm at this day and that proved in the most Supreme Science and therefore now to be supposed at least by all Christians That the Scripture is the Word of God So my Answer is good even in strictness That this Principle is to be supposed in this Dispute Num. 5 Besides the Jews never had nor can have any other Proof That the Old Testament is the Word of God than we have of the New For theirs was delivered by Moses and the Prophets and ours was delivered by the Apostles which were Prophets too The Jews did believe their Scripture by a Divine Authority For so the Jews argue themselves S. Joh. 9. We know that God spake with Moses And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses than they could in following God himself And our Saviour seems to infer as much S. Joh. 5. where he expostulates with the Jews thus If you believe not Moses his Writings how should you believe Me Now how did the Jews know that God spake to Moses How Why apparently the same way that is before set down First by Tradition So S. Chrysostome We know why By whose witness do you know By the Testimony of our Ancestors But he speaks not of their immediate Ancestors but their Prime which were Prophets and whose Testimony was Divine into which namely their Writings the Jews did resolve their Faith And even that Scripture of the Old Testament was a Light and a shining Light too And therefore could not but be sufficient when Tradition had gone before And yet though the Jews entred this way to their Belief of the Scripture they do not say Audivimus We have heard that God spake to Moses but We know it So they Resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward Principle than an Ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition And I would willingly learn of you if you can shew it me where ever any one Jew disputing with another about their Law did put the other to prove that the Old Testament was the Word of God But they still supposed it And when others put them to their Proof this way they went And yet you say F. That no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point B. § 19 Num. 1 I think I have shewed that my Answer is good and that no other Answer need be made If there were need I make no Question but another Answer might be made to assure us of this Point though we did not admit of any Word of God unwritten I say to assure us and you express no more If you had said to assure us by Divine Faith your Argument had been the stronger But if you speak of Assurance only in the general I must then tell you and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Insidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and Humane Proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe That such a City
first besides the silence of Impartial Antiquity divers of your Own confess it yea and prove it too by sundry Instances Num. 10 Secondly There is a great Question among the Learned both School-men and Controversers Whether the Pope coming to be an Heretick may be Deposed And 't is Learnedly disputed by Bellarmine The Opinions are different For the Canon-Law says expresly He may be judged and deposed by the Church in case of Heresie Joh. de Turrecremata is of Opinion That the Pope is to be deposed by the Church so soon as he becomes an Heretick though as yet not a manifest one Because he is already deprived by Divine Right And recites another opinion That the Pope cannot be deposed though he fall into secret or manifest Heresie Cajetan thinks that the Pope cannot be deposed but for a manifest Heresie and that then he is not deposed ipso facto but must be deposed by the Church Bellarmine's own Opinion is That if the Pope become a manifest Heretick he presently ceases to be Pope and Head of the Church and may then be Judged and punished by the Church Bellarmine hath disputed this very Learnedly and at large and I will not fill this Discourse with another mans Labours The use I shall make of it runs through all these Opinions and through all alike And truly the very Question it self supposes that A Pope may be an Heretick For if he cannot be an Heretick why do they question whether he can be Deposed for being One And if he can be one then whether he can be Deposed by the Church Before he be manifest or not till after or neither before nor after or which way they will it comes all to one for my purpose For I question not here his Deposition for his Heresie but his Heresie And I hope none of these Learned men nor any other dare deny but that if the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre For every Heresie is an Errour and more For 't is an Errour oft-times against the Errants knowledge but ever with the pertinacie of his Will Therefore out of all even your own Grounds If the Pope can be an Heretick he can erre grosly he can erre wilfully And he that can so Erre cannot be Infallible in his Judgement private or publike For if he can be an Heretick he can and doubtless will Judge for his Heresie if the Church let him alone And you your selves maintain his Deposition lawful to prevent this I verily believe Alb. Pighius foresaw this Blow And therefore he is of Opinion That the Pope cannot become an Heretick at all And though Bellarmine favour him so far as to say his Opinion is probable yet he is so honest as to adde that the Common opinion of Divines is against him Nay though he Labour hard to excuse Pope Honorius the first from the Heresie of the Monothelites and says that Pope Adrian was deceived who thought him one yet He confesses That Pope Adrian the second with the Councel then held at Rome and the eighth General Synod did think that the Pope might be Judged in the Cause of Heresie And that the condition of the Church were most miserable if it should be constrained to acknowledge a Wolf manifestly raging for her Shepherd And here again I have a Question to ask Whether you believe the eighth General Councel or not If you believe it then you see the Pope can erre and so He not Infallible If you believe it not then in your Judgement that General Councel erres and so that not Infallible Num. 11 Thirdly It is altogether in vain and to no use that the Pope should be Infallible and that according to your own Principles Now God and Nature make nothing in vain Therefore either the Pope is not Infallible or at least God never made him so That the Infallibility of the Pope had he any in him is altogether vain and useless is manifest For if it be of any use 't is for the setling of Truth and Peace in the Church in all times of her Distraction But neither the Church nor any member of it can make any use of the Popes Infallibility that way Therefore it is of no use or benefit at all And this also is as manifest as the rest For before the Church or any particular man can make any use of this Infallibility to settle him and his Conscience he must either Know or Believe that the Pope is Infallible But a man can neither Know nor Believe it And first for Belief For if the Church or any Christian man can believe it he must believe it either by Divine or by Humane Faith Divine Faith cannot be had of it For as is before proved it hath no Ground in the written Word of God Nay to follow you closer it was never delivered by any Tradition of the Catholike Church And for Humane Faith no Rational man can possibly believe having no Word of God to over-rule his Understanding that he which is Fallible in the Means as your selves confess the Pope is can possibly be Infallible in the Conclusion And were it so that a Rational man could have Humane Faith of this Infallibility yet that neither is nor never can be sufficient to make the Pope Infallible No more than my strong Belief of another mans Honesty can make him an Honest man if he be not so Now secondly for Knowledge and that is altogether impossible too that either the Church or any Member of the Church should ever know that the Pope is Infallible And this I shall make evident also out of your own Principles For your Councel of Florence had told us That three things are necessary to every Sacrament the Matter the Form of the Sacrament and the Intention of the Priest which administers it that he intends to do as the Church doth Your Councel of Trent confirms it for the Intention of the Priest Upon this Ground be it Rock or Sand it is all one for you make it Rock and build upon it I shall raise this Battery against the Popes Infallibility First the Pope if he have any Infallibility at all he hath it as he is Bishop of Rome and S. Peter's Successour This is granted Secondly the Pope cannot be Bishop of Rome but he must be in holy Orders first And if any man be chosen that is not so the Election is void ipso facto propter errorem Personae for the errour of the Person This also is granted Thirdly He that is to be made Pope can never be in Holy Orders but by receiving them from One that hath Power to Ordain This is notoriously known So is it also that with you Order is a Sacrament properly so called And if so then the Pope when he did receive the Order of Deacon or Priesthood at the hands of the Bishop did also receive a Sacrament Upon these Grounds I raise my
you are bound in Charity to believe us unless you can prove the Contrary For I know no other proof to men of any Point of Faith but Confession of it and Subscription to it And for these particulars we have made the one and done the other So 't is no bare saying but you have all the proof that can be had or that ever any Church required For how far that Belief or any other sinks into a mans heart is for none to judge but God Num. 3 Next A. C. Answers That if to say this be a sufficient Cause of Considence he marvels why I make such difficulty to be Confident of the Salvation of Romane Catholikes who believe all this in a far better manner than Protestants do Truly to say this is not a sufficient cause but to say and believe it is And to take off A. C's wonder why I make difficulty great difficulty of the salvation of Romane Catholikes who he says believe all this and in a far better manner than Protestants do I must be bold to tell him That Romanists are so far from believing this in a better manner than we do that under favour they believe not part of this at all And this is most manifest For the Romanists dare not believe but as the Romane Church believes And the Romane Church at this day doth not believe the Scripture and the Creeds in the sense in the which the Ancient Primitive Church received them For the Primitive Church never interpreted Christ's descent into Hell to be no lower than Limbus Patrum Nor did it acknowledge a Purgatory in a side-part of Hell Nor did it ever interpret away half the Sacrament from Christ's own Institution which to break Stapleton confesses expresly is a Damnable Errour Nor make the Intention of the Priest of the Essence of Baptism Nor believe Worship due to Images Nor dream of a Transubstantiation which the Learned of the Romane party dare not understand properly for a change of one substance into another for then they must grant that Christ's real and true Body is made of the Bread and the Bread changed into it which is properly Transubstantion Nor yet can they express it in a credible way as appears by Bellarmine's Struggle about it which yet in the end cannot be or be called Transubstantiation and is that which at this day is a scandal to both Jew and Gentile and the Church of God Num. 4 For all this A. C. goes on and tells us That they of Rome cannot be proved to depart from the Foundation so much as Protestants do So then We have at last a Confession here that they may be proved to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so far as the Protestants do I do not mean to Answer this and prove that the Romanists do depart as far or farther from the Foundation than the Protestants for then A. C. would take me at the same lift and say I granted a departure too Briefly therefore I have named here more Instances than one In some of which they have erred in the Foundation or very neer it But for the Church of England let A. C. instance if he can in any one Point in which She hath departed from the Foundation Well that A. C. will do For he says The Protestants erre against the Foundation by denying infallible Authority to a General Councel for that is in effect to deny Infallibility to the whole Catholike Church No there 's a great deal of difference between a General Councel and the whole Body of the Church Aud when a General Councel erres as the second of Ephesus did on t of that great Catholike Body another may be gathered as was then that of Chalcedon to do the Truth of Christ that right which belongs unto it Now if it were all one in effect to say a General Councel can erre and that the Whole Church can erre there were no Remedy left against a General Councel erring which is your Case now at Rome and which hath thrust the Church of Christ into more straits than any one thing besides But I know where you would be A General Councel is Infallible if it be confirmed by the Pope and the Pope he is Infallible else he could not make the Councel so And they which deny the Councels Infallibility deny the Pope's which confirms it And then indeed the Protestants depart a mighty way from this great Foundation of Faith the Popes Infallibility But God be thanked this is onely from the Foundation of the present Romane Faith as A. C. and the Jesuite call it not from any Foundation of the Christian Faith to which this Infallibility was ever a stranger Num. 5 From Answering A. C. falls to asking Questions I think he means to try whether he can win any thing upon me by the cunning way A multis Interrogationibus simul by asking many things at once to see if any one may make me slip into a Confession inconvenient And first he asks How Protestants admitting no Infallible Rule of Faith but Scripture onely can be infallibly sure that they believe the same entire Scripture and Creed and the Four first General Councels and in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitive Church believed 'T is just as I said Here are many Questions in one and I might easily be caught would I answer in gross to them all together but I shall go more distinctly to work Well then I admit no ordinary Rule left in the Church of Divine and Infallible Verity and so of Faith but the Scripture And I believe the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church Then by all other credible Motives as is before expressed And last of all by the light which shines in the Scripture it self kindled in Believers by the Spirit of God Then I believe the entire Scripture Infallibly and by a Divine Infallibility am sure of my Object Then am I as sure of my Believing which is the Act of my Faith conversant about this Object For no man believes but he must needs know in himself whether he believes or no and wherein and how far he doubts Then I am Infallibly assured of my Creed the Tradition of the Church inducing and the Scripture confirming it And I believe both Scripture and Creed in the same uncorrupted sense which the Primitive Church believed them and am sure that I do so Believe them because I cross not in my Belief any thing delivered by the Primitive Church And this again I am sure of because I take the Belief of the Primitive Church as it is expressed and delivered by the Councels and Ancient Fathers of those times As for the Four Councels if A. C. ask how I have them that is their true and entire Copies I answer I have them from the Church-Tradition onely And that 's Assurance enough for this And so I am fully as sure as A. C.
is or can make me But if he ask how I know infallibly I believe them in their true and uncorrupted sense Then I answer There 's no man of knowledge but he can understand the plain and simple Decision expressed in the Canon of the Councel where 't is necessary to Salvation And for all other debates in the Councels or Decisions of it in things of less moment 't is not necessary that I or any man else have Infallible Assurance of them though I think 't is possible to attain even in these things as much Infallible Assurance of the uncorrupted sense of them as A. C. or any other Jesuites have Num. 6 A. C. asks again What Text of Scripture tells That Protestants now living do believe all this or that all this is expressed in those particular Bibles or in the Writings of the Fathers and Councels which now are in the Protestants hands Good God! Whither will not a strong Bias carry even a learned Judgment Why what Consequence is there in this The Scripture now is the onely Ordinary Infallible Rule of Divine Faith Therefore the Protestants cannot believe all this before mentioned unless a particular Text of Scripture can be shewed for it Is it not made plain before how we believe Scripture to be Scripture and by Divine and Infallible Faith too and yet we can shew no particular Text for it Beside were a Text of Scripture necessary yet that is for the Object and the thing which we are to believe not for the Act of our believing which is meerly from God and in our selves and for which we cannot have any Warrant from or by Scripture more than that we ought to believe but not that we in our particular do believe The rest of the Question is far more inconsequent VVhether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are in Protestants hands For first we have the same Bibles in our hands which the Romanists have in theirs Therefore either we are Infallibly sure of ours or they are not Infallibly sure of theirs For we have the same Book and delivered unto us by the same hands and all is expressed in ours that is in theirs Nor is it of moment in this Argument that we account more Apocryphal than they do For I will acknowledge every Fundamental point of Faith as proveable out of the Canon as we account it as if the Apocryphal were added unto it Secondly A. C. is here extreamly out of himself and his way For his Question is VVhether all this be expressed in the Bibles which we have All this All what Why before there is mention of the four General Councels and in this Question here 's mention of the Writings of the Fathers and the Councels And what will A. C. look that we must shew a Text of Scripture for all this and an express one too I thought and do so still 't is enough to ground Belief upon Necessary Consequence out of Scripture as well as upon express Text. And this I am sure of that neither I nor any man else is bound to believe any thing as Necessary to Salvation be it found in Councels or Fathers or where you will if it be Contrary to express Scripture or necessary Consequence from it And for the Copies of the Councels and Fathers which are in our hands they are the same that are in the hands of the Romanists and delivered to Posterity by Tradition of the Church which is abundantly sufficient to warrant that So we are as Infallibly sure of this as 't is possible for any of you to be Nay are we not more sure For we have used no Index Expurgatorius upon the Writings of the Fathers as you have done So that Posterity hereafter must thank us for true Copies both of Councels and Fathers and not you Num. 7 But A. C. goes on and asks still Whether Protestants be Infallibly sure that they rightly understand the sense of all which is expressed in their Books according to that which was understood by the Primitive Church and the Fathers which were present at the four first General Councels A. C. may ask everlastingly if he will ask the same over and over again For I pray wherein doth this differ from his Question save onely that here Scripture is not named For there the Question was of our Assurance of the Incorrupted sense And therefore thither I refer you for Answer with this That it is not required either of us or of them that there should be had an Infallible assurance that we rightly understand the sense of all that is expressed in our Books And I think I may believe without sin that there are many things expressed in these Books for they are theirs as well as ours which A. C. and his Fellows have not Infallible assurance that they rightly understand in the sense of the Primitive Church or the Fathers present in those Councels And if they say Yes they can because when a difficulty crosses them they believe them in the Churches sense Yet that dry shift will not serve For belief of them in the Churches sense is an Implicite Faith but it works nothing distinctly upon the understanding For by an Implioite Faith no man can be infallibly assured that he doth rightly understand the sense which is A. C's Question whatever perhaps he may rightly believe And an Implicite Faith and an Infallible understanding of the same thing under the same Considerations cannot possibly stand together in the same man at the same time Num. 8 A. C. hath not done asking yet But he would farther know Whether Protestants can be Infallibly sure that all and onely those points which Protestants account Fundamental and necessary to be expresly known by all were so accounted by the Primitive Church Truly Unity in the Faith is very Considerable in the Church And in this the Protestants agree and as Uniformly as you and have as Infallible Assurance as you can have of all points which they account Fundamental yea and of all which were so accounted by the Primitive Church And these are but the Creed and some few and those Immediate deductions from it And †Tertullian and Ruffinus upon the very Clause of the Catholike Church to decipher it make a recital onely of the Fundamental Points of Faith And for the first of these the Creed you see what the sense of the Primitive Church was by that Famous and known place of Irenaeus where after he had recited the Creed as the Epitome or Brief of the Faith he adds That none of the Governours of the Church be they never so potent to Express them selves can say alia ab his other things from these Nor none so weak in Expression as to diminish this Tradition For since the Faith is One and the same He that can say much of it says no more than he ought Nor doth he diminish it that can say but little And in
the Son then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Son in this they seem to agree with us in eandem Fidei sententiam upon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the Sentence of Faith is the same penitus eadem even altogether the same Can the Point be Fundamental You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so deny them Salvation which cannot be had out of the true Church but I for my part dare not so do And Rome in this particular should be more moderate if it be but because this Article Filioque was added to the Creed by her self And 't is hard to adde and Anathematize too Num. 3 It ought to be no easie thing to condemn a man of Heresie in foundation of faith much less a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greek especially so as to make them no Church Heaven Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keys at his own Girdle And it is good counsel which Alphonsus a Castro one of your own gives Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselves to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that separates from the Church simply and not in part only I must needs profess that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Cross is heavy already had been more plainly and moderately dealt withal though they think a diverse thing from us then they have been by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forc'd F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against D. White concerning Points Fundamental B. § 10 Num. 1 Hereupon it is true that you read a large Discourse out of a Book printed which you said was yours the particulars all of them at the least I do not now remember nor did I then approve But if they be such as were formerly brought against Doctor White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine which Sentence I do not at all remember was so much as named in the Conference much less was it stood upon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But now you tell us of a great Proof made out of this place For these words of yours contain two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamental The other That this is proved out of this place of S. Augustine Num. 2 1 For the first That all Points defined by the Church are fundamental It was not the least means by which Rome grew to her Greatness to blast every Opposer she had with the Name of Heretick or Schismatick for this served to shrivel the Credit of the persons And the persons once brought into contempt and ignominy all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of Creditable Persons to back and support it To make this proceeding good in these later years this course it seems was taken The School that must maintain and so they do That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamental necessary to be believed of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leave the wise and active Heads to take order that there be strength enough ready to determine what is fittest for them Num. 3 But since these men distinguish not nor you between the Church in general and a General Councel which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith though I be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by Lawful General and consenting Authority though I give as much as can justly be given to the Definitions of Councels truly General Nay suppose I should grant which I do not That General Councels cannot erre yet this cannot down with mé That all Points even so defined are Fundamental For Deductions are not prime and native Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another to different Christians in regard of it self for then it could be no common Rule for any nor could the Souls of men rest upon a shaking foundation No If it be a true foundation it must be common to all and firm under all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are fundamental And Irenaeus lays this for a ground That the whole Church howsoever dispersed in place speaks this with one mouth He which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speak utters no more then this and less then this the most simple doth not utter Therefore the Creed of which he speaks is a common is a constant Foundation And an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which have the use of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church utter this Num. 4 Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right move far from the foundation without which Deductions explicitly believed many millions of Christians go to Heaven and cannot therefore be fundamental in the Faith True Deductions from the Article may require necessary belief in them which are able and do go along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion But I do not see either that the Learned do make them necessary to all or any reason why they should Therefore they cannot be fundamental and yet to some mens Salvation they are necessary Num. 5 Besides that which is fundamental in the Faith of Christ is a Rock immoveable and can never be varied Never Therefore if it be fundamental after the Church hath defined it it was fundamental before the Definition else it is moveable and then no Christian hath where to rest And if it be immoveable as indeed it is no Decree of a Councel be it never so General can alter immoveable Verities no more then it can change immoveable Natures Therefore if the Church in a Councel define any thing the thing defined is not fundamental because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the Definition of the Church if it be not so in it self For if the Church had this power she might make a new Article of the Faith which the Learned among your selves deny For the Articles of the Faith cannot increase in substance but only in Explication And for this I 'le be judg'd by Bellarmine who disputing against Amb. Catharinus about the certainty of Faith tells us That Divine Faith hath not its certainty because 't is Catholike i. common to the whole Church but because it builds on the Authority of God who is Truth it self and
Councel Decrees Now that Councel Decrees That Orders collated by the Bishop are not void though they be given without the consent or calling of the People or of any Secular Power And yet they can produce no Author that ever acknowledged this Definition of the Councel fundamental in the Faith 'T is true I do not grant that the Decrees of this Councel are made by full Authority of the Church but they do both grant and maintain it And therefore 't is Argumentum ad hominem a good argument against them that a thing so defined may be firm for so this is and yet not fundamental for so this is not Num. 15 But A. C. tells us further That if one may deny or doubtfully dispute against any one Determination of the Church then he may against another and another and so against all since all are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which being weakned in any one cannot be firm in any other First A. C. might have acknowledged that he borrowed the former part of this out of Vincentius Lirinensis And as that Learned Father uses it I subscribe to it but not as A. C. applies it For Vincentius speaks there de Catholico Dogmate of Catholick Maximes and A. C. will force it to every Determination of the Church Now Catholike Maximes which are properly fundamental are certain prime truths deposited with the Church and not so much determined by the Church as published and manifested and so made firm by her to us For so Vincentius expresly Where all that the Church doth is but ut hoc idem quod anteà that the same thing may be believed which was before believed but with more light and clearness and in that sense with more firmness then before Now in this sense give way to a Disputator errans every Cavilling Disputer to deny or quarrel at the Maximes of Christian Religion any one or any part of any one of them and why may he not then take liberty to do the like of any other till he have shaken all But this hinders not the Church her self nor any appointed by the Church to examine her own Decrees and to see that she keep Dogmata deposita the Principles of Faith unblemished and uncorrupted For if she do not so but that Novitia veteribus new Doctrines be added to the old the Church which is Sacrarium veritatis the Repository of Verity may be changed in lupanar errorum I am loath to English it By the Church then this may nay it ought to be done however every wrangling Disputer may neither deny nor doubtfully dispute much less obstinately oppose the Determinations of the Church no not where they are not Dogmata Deposita these deposited Principles But if he will be so bold to deny or dispute the Determinations of the Church yet that may be done without shaking the foundation where the Determinations themselves belong but to the fabrick and not to the foundation For a whole frame of Building may be shaken and yet the foundation where it is well laid remain firm And therefore after all A. C. dares not say the foundation is shaken but only in a sort And then 't is as true that in a sort it is not shaken Num. 16 2 For the second part of his Argument A. C. must pardon me if I dissent from him For first All Determinations of the Church are not made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation For some Determinations of the Church are made firm to us per chirographum Scripturae by the hand-writing of the Scripture and that 's Authentical indeed Some other Decisions yea and of the Church too are made or may be if Stapleton inform us right without an evident nay without so much as a probable Testimony of Holy Writ But Bellarmine falls quite off in this and confesses in express terms That nothing can be certain by certainty of Faith unless it be contained immediately in the Word of God or be deduced out of the Word of God by evident consequence And if nothing can be certain but so then certainly no Determination of the Church it self if that Determination be not grounded upon one of these either express Word of God or evident consequence out of it So here 's little agreement in this great Point between Stapleton and Bellarmine Nor can this be shifted off as if Stapleton spake of the Word of God Written and Bellarmine of the Word of God Unwritten as he calls Tradition For Bollarmine treats there of the knowledge which a man hath of the certainty of his own Salvation And I hope A. C. will not tell us there 's any Tradition extant unwritten by which particular men may have assurance of their several Salvations Therefore Bellarmine's whole Disputation there is quite beside the matter or else he must speak of the written Word and so lye cross to Stapleton as is mentioned But to return If A. C. will he may but I cannot believe that a Definition of the Church which is made by the express Word of God and another which is made without so much as a probable Testimony of it or a clear Deduction from it are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation Nay I must say in this case that the one Determination is firm by Divine Revelation but the other hath no Divine Revelation at all but the Churches Authority only ◠Secondly I cannot believe neither That all Determinations of the Church are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church For the Authority of the Church though it be of the same fulness in regard of it self and of the Power which it commits to General Councels lawfully called yet it is not always of the same fulness of knowledge and sufficiency nor of the same fulness of Conscience and integrity to apply Dogmata Fidei that which is Dogmatical in the Faith For instance I think you dare not deny but the Councel of Trent was lawfully called and yet I am of Opinion that few even of your selves believe that the Councel of Trent hath the same fulness with the Councel of Nice in all the forenamed kinds or degrees of fulness Thirdly suppose that all Determinations of the Church are made firm to us by one and the same Divine Revelation and sufficiently applied by one and the sante full Authority yet it will not follow that they are all alike fundamental in the Faith For I hope A. C. himself will not say that the Definitions of the Church are in better condition then the Propositions of Canonical Scripture Now all Propositions of Canonical Scripture are alike firm because they all alike proceed from Divine Revelation but they are not all alike fundamental in the Faith For this Proposition of Christ to S. Peter and S. Andrew
into the Canon if the evidence of this Light were either Universal or Infallible of and by it self And this though I cannot approve yet methinks you may and upon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will deny but that there is as much light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it self to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Divine and infallibly the Unwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the †Apostles that the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to bear witness to their own Verity as the Church is to bear witness to her own Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selves would never go to the Scripture to prove that there are Traditions as you do if you did not think the Scripture as easie to be discovered by inbred light in it self as Traditions by their light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirm That Scripture may be known to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it self as it is which you affirm That a Tradition may be known to be such by the light which it hath in it self which is an excellent Proposition to make sport withal were this an Argument to be handled merrily Num. 11 3. For the third Opinion and way of proving either some think that there is no sufficient warrant for this unless they fetch it from the Testimony of the Holy Ghost and so look in vain after special Revelations and make themselves by this very Conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing private spirit or else you would fain have them think so For your side both upon this and other Occasions do often challenge That we resolve all our Faith into the Dictates of a private Spirit from which we shall ever prove our selves as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed upon that there must be a Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum under which can rest no possible errour That the Books of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which go to the testimony of the Holy Ghost for proof of this do mean by Faith Objectum Fidei the Object of Faith that is to be believed then no question they are out of the ordinary way For God never sent us by any word or warrant of his to look for any such special and private Testimony to prove which that Book is that we must believe But if by Faith they mean the Habit or Act of Divine infused Faith by which vertue they do believe the Credible Object and thing to be believed then their speech is true and confessed by all Divines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infused Habit in respect whereof the Soul is meerly recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that work which none can do but He. For the Holy Ghost as He first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles So did he not leave the Church in general nor the true members of it in particular without Grace to believe what himself had revealed and made Credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receive a kind of preparation or Occasion of Beginning from the Testimony of the Church as it proposeth and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God revealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God move the Heart of man he cannot believe be the Object never so Credible The speech is true then but quite out of the State of this Question which inquires only after a sufficient means to make this Object Credible and fit to be believed against all impeachment of folly and temerity in Belief whether men do actually believe it or not For which no man may expect inward private Revelation without the external means of the Church unless perhaps the case of Necessity be excepted when a man lives in such a time and place as excludes him from all ordinary means in which I dare not offer to shut up God from the Souls of men nor to tye him to those ordinary ways and means to which yet in great wisdom and providence He hath tied and bound all mankind Num. 12 Private Revelation then hath nothing ordinarily to do to make the Object Credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and evident means as other men may take notice of as well as our selves By which if there arise any Doubting or Infirmity in the Faith others may strengthen us or we afford means to support them Whereas the Testimony of the Spirit and all private Revelation is within nor felt nor seen of any but him that hath it So that hence can be drawn no proof to others And Miracles are not sufficient alone to prove it unless both They and the Revelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an unalterable Rule by man or Angel To all this A. C. says nothing save that I seem not to admit of an Infallible Impulsion of a private Spirit ex parte subjecti without any infallible Reason and that sufficiently applied ex parte objecti which if I did admit would open a gap to all Enthusiasms and dreams of fanatical men Now for this yet I thank him For I do not only seem not to admit but I do most clearly reject this phrensie in the words going before Num. 13 4. The last way which gives Reason leave to come in and prove what it can may not justly be denied by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heaven nor believe this Book in which God hath written the way yet Grace is never placed but in a reasonable Creature and proves by the very seat which it hath taken up that the end it hath is to be spiritual eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature only it cannot but never to blemish Reason in that which it can comprehend Now the use of Reason is very general and man do what he can is still apt to search and seek for a Reason why he will believe though after he once believes his Faith grows stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other can in this life Num. 14 In this Particular the Books called the Scripture
them very deservedly And were these Texts more void of Truth than they are yet it were fit and reasonable to uphold their credit that Novices and young Beginners in a Science which are not able to work strongly upon Reason nor Reason upon them may have Authority to believe till they can learn to Conclude from Principles and so to know Is this also reasonable in other Sciences and shall it not be so in Theology to have a Text a Scripture a Rule which Novices may be taught first to believe that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things which out of this rich Principle and Treasure are Deduceable I yet see not how right Reason can deny these Grounds and if it cannot then a meer Natural man may be thus far convinced That the Text of God is a very Credible Text. Num. 19 Well these are the four ways by most of which men offer to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God as by a Divine and Infallible Warrant And it seems no one of these doth it alone The Tradition of the present Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine The Light which is in Scripture it self is not bright enough it cannot bear sufficient witness to it self The Testimony of the Holy Ghost that is most infallible but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question which is not how or by what means we believe but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible Object fit for Belief And for Reason no man expects that that should prove it it doth service enough if it enable us to disprove that which misguided men conceive against it If none of these then be an Absolute and sufficient means to prove it either we must find out another or see what can be more wrought out of these And to all this again A. C. says nothing For the Tradition of the Church then certain it is we must distinguish the Church before we can judge right of the Validity of the Tradition For if the speech be of the Prime Christian Church the Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven no question but the Voyce and Tradition of this Church is Divine not aliquo modo in a sort but simply and the Word of God from them is of like Validity written or delivered And against this Tradition of which kind this That the Books of Scripture are the Word of God is the most general and uniform the Church of England never excepted And when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholike Church moved me which Place you urged at the Conference though you are now content to slide by iâ— some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in General not excluding after-ages But sure to include Christ and his Apostles And the certainty is there abundance of certainty in it self but how far that is evident to us shall after appear Num. 21 But this will not serve your turn The Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive But the contrary to this is proved before because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Divine To what end then serves any Tradition of the present Church To what Why to a very good end For first it serves by a full consent to work upon the minds of unbelievers to move them to read and to consider the Scripture which they hear by so many Wise Learned and Devouâ— men is of no meaner esteem than the Word of God And secondly It serves among Novices Weakings and Doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirm them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scripture which the Church delivers as the Word of God And thus again some of your own understand the fore-cited Place of St. Augustine I would not believe the Gospel c. For he speaks it either of Novices or Doubters in the Faith or else of such as were in part Infidels You at the Conference though you omit it here would needs have it that S. Augustine spake even of the faithful which I cannot yet think For he speaks to the Manichees and they had a great part of the Infidel in them And the words immediately before these are If thou shouldest â—ind one Qui Evangelio nondum credit which did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldest thou do to make him believe Ego verò non Truly I would not c. So to these two ends it serves and there need be no Question between us But then every thing that is the first Inducer to believe is not by and by either the Principal Motive or the chief and last Object of Belief upon which a man may rest his Faith Unless we shall be of Jacobuâ— Almain's Opinion That we are per priâ—â— magis first and more bound to believe the Church than the Gospel Which your own Learned men as you may see by â— Mel. Canus reject as Extreme â—oul and so indeed it is The first knowledge then after the Quid Nominâ—â— is known by Grammar that helps to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to Demonstrate a Truth and make it evident is his Logick But when he hath made a Demonstration he resolves the knowledge of his Conclusion not into his Grammatical or Logical Principles but into the Immediate Principles out of which it is deduced So in thiâ— Particular a man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading Means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God but when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with it self and with other Writings with the help of Ordinary Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the Voyce of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it self then Tradition alone could give And then he that Believes resolves his last and full Assent That Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self though found by the Help and Direction of Tradition without and Grace within And the resolution that is rightly grounded may not endure to pitch and rest it self upon the Helps but upon that Divine Light which the Scripture no Question hath in it self but is not kindled till these Helps come Thy Word is a Light so David A Light Therefore it is as much manifestatiâ—um sui as alâ—eriâ—s a manifestation to it self as to other things which it shews but still not till the Candle be Lighted not till there hath been a Preparing Instruction What Light it is Children call the Sun and Moon Candles Gods Candles They see the light as well as men but cannot distinguish between them
to the Apostles only for the setling of them in all Truth And yet not simply all For there are some Truths saith Saint Augustine which no mans Soul can comprehend in this life Not simply all But all those Truths quae non poterant portare which they were not able to bear when He Conversed with them Not simply all but all that was necessary for the Founding propagating establishing and Confirming the Christian Church But if any man take the boldness to inlarge this Promise in the fulness of it beyond the persons of the Apostles themselves that will fall out which Saint Augustine hath in a manner prophecied Every Heretick will shelter himself and his Vanities under this Colour of Infallible Verity Num. 30 I told you a little before that A. C. his Pen was troubled and failed him Therefore I will help to make out his Inference for him that his Cause may have all the strength it can And as I conceive this is that he would have The Tradition of the present Church is as able to work in us Divine and Infallible Faith That the Scripture is the Word of God As that the Bible or Books of Scripture now printed and in use is a true Copy of that which was first written by the Pen-men of the Holy Ghost and delivered to the Church 'T is most true the Tradition of the present Church is alike operative and powerful in and over both these works but neither Divine nor Infallible in either But as it is the first moral Inducement to perswade that Scripture is the Word of God so is it also the first but moral still that the Bible we now have is a true Copy of that which was first written But then as in the former so in this latter for the true Copy The last Resolution of our Faith cannot possibly rest upon the naked Tradition of the present Church but must by and with it go higher to other Helps and Assurances Where I hope A. C. will confess we have greater helps to discover the truth or falshood of a Copy than we have means to look into a Tradition Or especially to sift out this Truth That it was a Divine and Infallible Revelation by which the Originals of Scripture were first written That being far more the Subject of this Inquiry than the Copy which according to Art and Science may be examined by former preceding Copies close up to the very Apostles times Num. 31 But A. C. hath not done yet For in the last place he tells us That Tradition and Scripture without any vicious Circle do mutually confirm the Authority either of other And truly for my part I shall easily grant him this so he will grant me this other Namely That though they do mutually yet they do not equally confirm the Authority either of other For Scripture doth infallibly confirm the Authority of Church-Traditions truly so called But Tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the Authority of the Scripture And this is manifest by A. C.'s own Similitude For saith he 't is as a Kings Embassadors word of mouth and His Kings Letters bear mutual witness to each other Just so indeed For His Kings Letters of Credence under hand and seal confirm the Embassadors Authority Infallibly to all that know Seal and hand But the Embassadors word of mouth confirms His Kings Letters but only probably For else Why are they called Letters of Credence if they give not him more Credit than he can give them But that which follows I cannot approve to wit That the Lawfully sent Preachers of the Gospel are Gods Legats and the Scriptures Gods Letters which he hath appointed his Legates to deliver and expound So far 't is well but here 's the sting That these Letters do warrant that the People may hear and give Credit to these Legates of Christ as to Christ the King himself Soft this is too high a great deal No Legate was ever of so great Credit as the King himself Nor was any Priest never so lawfully sent ever of that Authority that Christ himself No sure For ye call me Master and Lord and ye do well for so I am saith our Saviour S. John 13. And certainly this did not suddenly drop out of A. C's Pen. For he told us once before That this Company of men which deliver the present Churches Tradition that is the lawfully sent Preachers of the Church are assisted by Gods Spirit to have in them Divine and Infallible Authority and to be worthy of Divine and Infallible Credit sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Why but is it possible these men should go thus far to defend an Error be it never so dear unto them They as Christ Divine and Infallible Authority in them Sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith I have often heard some wise men say That the Jesuite in the Church of Rome and the Precise party in the Reformed Churches agree in many things though they would seem most to differ And surely this is one For both of them differ extremely about Tradition The one in magnifying it and exalting it into Divine Authority the other vilifying and depressing it almost beneath Humane And yet even in these different ways both agree in this Consequent That the Sermons and Preachings by word of mouth of the lawfully sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church are able to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Nay are the very word of God So A. C. expresly And no less then so have some accounted of their own factious words to say no more than as the Word of God I ever took Sermons and so do still to be most necessary Expositions and Applications of Holy Scripture and a great ordinary means of saving knowledge But I cannot think them or the Preachers of them Divinely Infallible The Ancient Fathers of the Church preached far beyond any of these of either faction And yet no one of them durst think himself Infallible much less that whatsoever he preached was the Word of God And it may be Observed too That no men are more apt to say That all the Fathers were but Men and might Erre than they that think their own preachings are Infallible Num. 32 The next thing after this large Interpretation of A. C. which I shall trouble you with is That this method and manner of proving Scripture to be the Word of God which I here use is the same which the Ancient Church ever held namely Tradition or Ecclesiastical Authority first and then all other Arguments but especially internal from the Scripture it self This way the Church went in S. Augustine's Time He was no enemy to Church-Tradition yet when he would prove that the Author of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Divinity as it is supernatural is Deus in Christo God in Christ he takes this as the All-sufficient way and gives
four proofs all internal to the Scripture First The Miracles Secondly That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine Thirdly That there hath been such performance of it Fourthly That by such a Doctrine of Humility the whole world almost hath been converted And whereas à d muniendam Fidem for the Defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and church-Church-Tradition Vincent Lirinens places Authority of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparent that Tradition is first in order of time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of Nature that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self And your own School confesses this was the way ever The Woman of Samaria is a known Resemblance but allowed by your selves For quotidiè daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman that is the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives c. But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe his word before the words of the Woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus the School taught then and thus the Gloss commented then And when men have tired themselves hither they must come The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures even to this knowledge of them That they are the Word of God is the Tradition of the Church but when they are in They hear Christ himself immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithful And his sheep do not only hear but know his voice And then here 's no vicious Circle indeed of proving the Scripture by the Church and then round about the Church by the Scripture Only distinguish the Times and the Conditions of men and all is safe For a Beginner in the Faith or a Weakling or a Doubter about it begins at Tradition and proves Scripture by the Church But a man strong and grown up in the Faith and understandingly conversant in the Word of God proves the Church by the Scripture And then upon the matter we have a double Divine Testimonie altogether Infallible to confirm unto us That Scripture is the Word of God The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselves who delivered immediately to the world the Word of Christ. The other the Scripture it self but after it hath received this Testimonie And into these we do and may safely Resolve our Faith As for the Tradition of after-Ages in and about which Miracles and Divine Power were not so evident we believë them by Gandavo's full Confession because they do not preach other things than those former the Apostles left in scriptis certissimis in most certain Scripture And it appears by men in the middle Ages that these writings were vitiated in nothing by the concordant consent in them of all succeeders to our own time Num. 33 And now by this time it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers which seem to speak differently in no few places both one from another and the same from themselves touching Scripture and Tradition And that as well in this Point to prove Scripture to be the Word of God as for concordant Exposition of Scripture in all things else When therefore the Fathers say We have the Scriptures by Tradition or the like either They mean the Tradition of the Apostles themselves delivering it and there when it is known to be such we may resolve our Faith Or if they speak of the Present Church then they mean that the Tradition of it is that by which we first receive the Scripture as by an according Means to the Prime Tradition But because it is not simply Divine we cannot resolve our Faith into it nor settle our Faith upon it till it resolve it self into the Prime Tradition of the Apostles or the Scripture or both and there we rest with it And you cannot shew an ordinary consent of Fathers Nay can you or any of your Quarter shew any one Father of the Church Greek or Latine that ever said We are to resolve our Faith that Scripture is the Word God into the Tradition of the present Church And again when the Fathers say we are to rely upon Scripture only they are never to be understood with Exclusion of Tradition in what causes soever it may be had Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient in and to it self for all things but because it is deep and may be drawn into different senses and so mistaken if any man will presume upon his own strength and go single without the Church Num. 34 To gather up whatsoever may seem scattered in this long Discourse to prove That Scripture is the Word of God I shall now in the Last place put all together that so the whole state of the Question may the better appear First then I shall desire the Reader to consider that every Rational Science requires some Principles quite without its own Limits which are not proved in that Science but presupposed Thus Rhetorick presupposes Grammar and Musick Arithmetick Therefore it is most reasonable that Theology should be allowed to have some Principles also which she proves not but presupposes And the chiefest of these is That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority Secondly that there is a great deal of difference in the Manner of confirming the Principles of Divinity and those of any other Art or Science whatsoever For the Principles of all other Sciences do finally resolve either into the Conclusions of some Higher Science or into those Principles which are per se nota known by their own light and are the Grounds and Principles of all Science And this is it which properly makes them Sciences because they proceed with such strength of Demonstration as forces Reason to yeeld unto them But the Principles of Divinity resolve not into the Grounds of Natural Reason For then there would be no room for Faith but all would be either Knowledge or Vision but into the Maximes of Divine Knowledge supernatural And of this we have just so much light and no more than God hath revealed unto us in the Scripture Thirdly That though the Evidence of these Supernatural Truths which Divinity teaches appears not so manifest as that of the Natural yet they are in themselves much more sure and infallible than they For they proceed immediately from God that Heavenly Wisdom which being the fountain of ours must needs infinitely precede ours both in Nature and excellence He that teacheth man knowledge shall not be know Psal. 94. And therefore though we reach not the Order of their Deductions nor can in this life come to the vision of them
yet we yeeld as full and firm Assent not only to the Articles but to all the Things rightly deduced from them as we do to the most evident Principles of Natural Reason This Assent is called Faith And Faith being of things not seen Heb. 11. would quite lose its honour nay it self if it met with sufficient Grounds in Natural Reason whereon to stay it self For Faith is a mixed Act of the Will and the Understanding and the Will inclines the Understanding to yeeld full approbation to that whereof it sees not full proof Not but that there is most full proof of them but because the main Grounds which prove them are concealed from our view and folded up in the unrevealed Counsel of God God in Christ resolving to bring mankind to their last happiness by Faith and not by knowledge that so the weakest among men may have their way to blessedness open And certain it is that many weak men believe themselves into Heaven and many over-knowing Christians lose their way thither while they will believe no more than they can clearly know In which pride and vanity of theirs they are left and have these things hid from them S. Matth. 11. Fourthly That the Credit of the Scripture the Book in which the Principles of Faith are written as of other writings also depends not upon the subservient Inducing Cause that leads us to the first knowledge of the Author which leader here is the Church but upon the Author himself and the Opinion we have of his sufficiencie which here is the Holy Spirit of God whose Pen-men the Prophets and Apostles were And therefore the Mysteries of Divinity contained in this Book As the Incarnation of our Saviour The Resurrection of the dead and the like cannot finally be resolved into the sole Testimony of the Church who is but a subservient Cause to lead to the knowledge of the Author but into the Wisdom and Sufficiencie of the Author who being Omnipotent and Omniscient must needs be Infallible Fifthly That the Assurance we have of the Pen-men of the Scriptures the Holy Prophets and Apostles is as great as any can be had of any Humane Authors of like Antiquity For it is morally as evident to any Pagan that S. Matthew and S. Paul writ the Gospel and Epistles which bear their Names as that Cicero or Seneca wrote theirs But that the Apostles were divinely inspired whilst they writ them and that they are the very Word of God expressed by them this hath ever been a matter of Faith in the Church and was so even while the Apostles themselves lived and was never a matter of Evidence and Knowledge at least as Knowledge is opposed to Faith Nor could it at any time then be more Demonstratively proved than now I say not scientifice not Demonstratively For were the Apostles living and should they tell us that they spake and writ the very Oracles of God yet this were but their own Testimony of themselves and so not alone able to enforce Belief on others And for their Miracles though they were very Great Inducements of Belief yet were neither they Evident and Convincing Proofs alone and of themselves Both because There may be counterfeit Miracles And because true ones are neither Infallible nor Inseparable Marks of Truth in Doctrine Not Infallible For they may be Marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Deut. 13. Not proper and Inseparable For all which wrote by Inspiration did not confirm their Doctrine by Miracles For we do not find that David or Solomon with some other of the Prophets did any neither were any wrought by S. John the Baptist S. Joh. 10. So as Credible Signs they were and are still of as much force to us as 't is possible for things on the credit of Relation to be For the Witnesses are many and such as spent their lives in making good the Truth which they saw But that the Workers of them were Divinely and Infallibly inspired in that which they Preacht and Writ was still to the Hearers a matter of Faith and no more evident by the light of Humane Reason to men that lived in those Days than to us now For had that been Demonstrated or been clear as Prime Principles are in its own light both they and we had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge not by Faith But this is most apparent was not For had the Prophets or Apostles been ordered by God to make this Demonstratively or Intuitively by Discourse or Vision appear as clear to their Auditors as to themselves it did that whatsoever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth all men which had the true use of Reason must have been forced to yeeld to their Doctrine Esay could never have been at Domine quis Lord who hath believed our Report Esay 53. Nor Jeremy at Domine factus sum Lord I am in derision daily Jer. 20. Nor could any of S. Pauls Auditors have mocked at him as some of them did Act. 17. for Preaching the Resurrection if they had had as full a view as S. Paul himself had in the Assurance which God gave of it in and by the Resurrection of Christ vers 31. But the way of Knowledge was not that which God thought fittest for mans Salvation For Man having sinned by Pride God thought fittest to humble him at the very root of the Tree of Knowledge and make him deny his understanding and submit to Faith or hazard his happiness The Credible Object all the while that is the Mysteries of Religion and the Scripture which contains them is Divine and Infallible and so are the Pen-men of them by Revelation But we and all our Forefathers the Hearers and Readers of them have neither knowledge nor vision of the Prime Principles in or about them but Faith only And the Revelation which was clear to them is not so to us nor therefore the Prime Tradition it self delivered by them Sixthly That hence it may be gathered that the Assent which we yeeld to this main Principle of Divinity That the Scripture is the Word of God is grounded upon no Compelling or Demonstrative Ratiocination but relies upon the strength of Faith more than any other Principle whatsoever For all other necessary Points of Divinity may by undeniable Discourse be inferred out of Scripture it self once admitted but this concerning the Authority of Scripture not possibly But must either be proved by Revelation which is not now to be expected Or presupposed and granted as manifest in it self like the Principles of natural knowledge which Reason alone will never Grant Or by Tradition of the Church both Prime and Present with all other Rational Helps preceding or accompanying the internal Light in Scripture it self which though it give Light enough for Faith to believe yet Light enough it gives not to be a convincing Reason and proof for
up of the spiritual seed of Abraham Rom. 11. If the root be holy so are the branches Well then the whole Militant Church is Holy and so we believe Why but will it not follow then That the whole Militant Church cannot possibly erre in the Foundations of the Faith That she may erre in Superstructures and Deductions and other by and unnecessary Truths if her Curiosity or other weakness carry her beyond or cause her to fall short of her Rule no doubt need be made But if She can erre either from the Foundation or in it She can be no longer Holy and that Article of the Creed is gone For if she can erre quite from the Foundation then She is nor Holy nor Church but becomes an Infidel Now this cannot be For all Divines Ancient and Modern Romanists and Reformers agree in this That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into general Apostacie And if She Erre in the Foundation that is in some one or more Fundamental Points of Faith then She may be a Church of Christ still but not Holy but becomes Heretical And most Certain it is that no Assembly be it never so general of such Hereticks is or can be Holy Other Errors that are of a meaner alay take not Holiness from the Church but these that are dyed in grain cannot consist with Holiness of which Faith in Christ is the very Foundation And therefore if we will keep up our Creed the whole Militant Church must be still Holy For if it be not so still then there may be a time that Falsum may subesse Fidei Catholicae That falshood and that in a high degree in the very Article may be the Subject of the Catholike Faith which were no less than Blasphemy to affirm For we must still believe the Holy Catholike Church And if She be not still Holy then at that time when she is not so we believe a Falshood under the Article of the Catholike Faith Therefore a very dangerous thing it is to cry out in general terms That the whole Catholike Militant Church can Erre and not limit nor distinguish in time that it can erre indeed for Ignorance it hath and Ignorance can Erre But Erre it cannot either by falling totally from the Foundation or by Heretical Error in it For the Holiness of the Church consists as much if not more in the Verity of the Faith as in the Integrity of Manners taught and Commanded in the Doctrine of Faith Num. 6 Now in this Discourse A. C. thinks he hath met with me For he tells me That I may not only safely grant that protestants made the Division that is now in the Church but further also and that with a safe Confidence as one did was it not you saith he That it was ill done of those who first made the Separation Truly I do not now remember whether I said it or no. But because A. C. shall have full satisfaction from me and without any Tergiversation if I did not say it then I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who ere they were that first made the separation But then A. C. must not understand me of Actual only but of Causal separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the Cause of it is And he makes the Separation that gives the first just Cause of it not he that makes an Actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says 't is most true Neither can he deny it in this sense in which I have expressed it for his very Assertion against us though false is in these Terms That we gave the first Cause Therefore he must mean it of Causal not of Actual Separation only Num. 7 But then A. C. goes on and tells us That after this Breach was made yet the Church of Rome was so kind and careful to seek the Protestants that She invited them publikely with Safe-conduct to Rome to a General Councel freely to speak what they could for themselves Indeed I think the Church of Rome did carefully seek the Protestants But I doubt it was to bring them within their Net And she invited them to Rome A very safe place if you mark it for them to come to just as the Lyon in the Apologue invited the Fox to his own Den. Yea but there was Safe-Conduct offered too Yes Conduct perhaps but not safe or safe perhaps for going thither but none for coming thence Vestigia nulla retrorsum Yea but it should have been to a General Councel Perhaps so But was the Conduct safe that was given for coming to a Councel which they call General to some others before them No sure John Hus and Jerome of Prage burnt for all their Safe-Conduct And so long as Jesuites write and maintain That Faith given is not to be kept with Hereticks And the Church of Rome leaves this lewd Doctrine uncensured as it hath hitherto done and no exception put in of force and violence A. C. shall pardon us that we come not to Rome nor within the reach of Roman Power what freedom of Speech soever be promised us For to what end Freedom of Speech on their part since they are resolved to alter nothing And to what end Freedom of speech on our part if after speech hath been free life shall not Num. 8 And yet for all this A. C. makes no doubt but that the Romane Church is so far from being Cause of the continuance of the Schism or hinderance of the Re-union that it would yet give a free hearing with most ample Safe-Conduct if any hope might be given that the Protestants would sincerely seek nothing but Truth and Peace Truly A. C. is very Resolute for the Roman Church yet how far he may undertake for it I cannot tell But for my part I am of the same Opinion for the continuing of the Schism that I was for the making of it That is that it is ill very ill done of those whoever they be Papists or Protestants that give just Cause to continue a Separation But for free-hearings or Safe-Conducts I have said enough till that Church do not only say but do otherwise And as for Truth and Peace they are in every mans mouth with you and with us But lay they but half so close to the hearts of men as they are common on their tongues it would soon be better with Christendom than at this day it is or is like to be And for the Protestants in general I hope they seek both Truth and Peace sincerely The Church of England I am sure doth and hath taught me to pray for both as I most heartily do But what Rome doth in this if the world will not see I will not Censure Num. 9 And for that which A. C. adds That such a
that Patriarchs Jurisdiction as it was then practised And he says expresly That according to the old Custome the Roman Patriarchs Charge was confined within the Limits of the Suburbicarian Churches To avoid the force of this Testimony Cardinal Peron lays load upon Ruffinus For he charges him with Passion Ignorance and Rashness And one piece of his Ignorance is That he hath ill translated the Canon of the Councel of Nice Now be that as it may I neither do nor can approve his Translation of that Canon nor can it be easily proved that he purposely intended a Translation All that I urge is that Ruffinus living in that time and Place was very like well to know and understand the Limits and Bounds of that Patriarchate of Rome in which he lived Secondly here 's That it had potentiorem a more powerful Principality than other Churches had And that the Protestants grant too and that not only because the Roman Prelate was Ordine primus first in Order and Degree which some One must be to avoid Confusion But also because the Roman Sea had won a great deal of Credit and gained a great deal of Power to it self in Church-Affairs Because while the Greek yea and the African Churches too were turbulent and distracted with many and dangerous Opinions the Church of Rome all that while and a good while after Irenaeus too was more calm and constant to the Truth Thirdly here 's a Necessity say they required That every Church that is the faithful which are every where agree with that Church But what simply with that Church what ever it do or believe No nothing less For Irenaeus adds with that Church in quâ in which is conserved that Tradition which was delivered by the Apostles And God forbid but it should be necessary for all Churches and all the faithful to agree with that Ancient Apostolike Church in all those Things in which it keeps to the Doctrine and Discipline delivered by the Apostles In Iraeneus his time it kept these better than any other Church and by this in part obtained potentiorem Principalitatem a Greater power than other Churches but not over all other Churches And as they understand Irenaeus a Necessity lay upon all other Churches to agree with this but this Necessity was laid upon them by the Then Integrity of the Christian Faith there professed not by the Universality of the Roman Jurisdiction now challenged And let Rome reduce it self to the Observation of Tradition Apostolike to which it then held and I will say as Irenaeus did That it will be then necessary for every Church and for the Faithful every where to agree with it Lastly let me Observe too That Irenaeus made no doubt but that Rome might fall away from Apostolical Tradition as well as other Particular Churches of great Name have done For he does not say in quâ servanda semper erit sed in quâ servata est Not in which Church the Doctrine delivered from the Apostles shall ever be entirely kept That had been home indeed But in which by God's Grace and Mercy it was to that time of Irenaeus so kept and preserved So we have here in Irenaeus his Judgment the Church of Rome then Entire but not Infallible And endowed with a more powerful Principality than other Churches but not with an Universal Dominion over all other Churches which is the Thing in Question Num. 14 But to this place of Irenaeus A. C. joyns a Reason of his own For he tells us the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's Successor and therefore to Him we must have recourse The Fathers I deny not ascribe very much to S. Peter But 't is to S. Peter in his own person And among them Epiphanius is as free and as frequent in extolling S. Peter as any of them And yet did he never intend to give an Absolute Principality to Rome in S. Peter's right There is a Noted Place in that Father where his words are these For the Lord himself made S. Peter the first of the Apostles a firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it c. For in him the Faith is made firm every way who received the Key of Heaven c. For in him all the Questions and Subtilties of the Faith are sound This is a great Place at first sight too and deserves a Marginal Note to call young Readers eyes to view it And it hath this Note in the Old Latine Edition at Paris 1564. Petri Principatus Praestantia Peters Principality and Excellencie This Place as much shew as it makes for the Roman Principality I shall easily clear and yet do no wrong either to S. Peter or the Roman Church For most manifest it is That the Authority of S. Peter is urged here to prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost And then follow the Elogies given to S. Peter the better to set off and make good that Authority As that he was Princeps Apostolorum the Prince of the Apostles and pronounced blessed by Christ because as God the Father revealed to him the Godhead of the Son so did he again the Godhead of the Holy Ghost After this Epiphanius calls Him solidam Petram a solid Rock upon which the Church of God was founded against which the Gates of Hell should not prevail And adds That the Faith was rooted and made firm in him every way in him who received the Key of Heaven And after this he gives the Reason of all Because in Him mark I pray 't is still in Him as he was blessed by that Revelation from God the Father S. Mathew 16. were found all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very Nice-Cities and exactness of the Christian Faith For he professed the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And so Omni modo every Point of Faith was rooted in Him And this is the full meaning of that Learned Father in this passage Now therefore Building the Church upon Saint Peter in Epiphanius his sense is not as if He and his Successors were to be Monarchs over it for ever But it is the edifying and establishing the Church in the true Faith of Christ by the Confession which S. Peter made And so He expresses himself elsewhere most plainly Saint Peter saith he who was made to us indeed a solid Rock firming the Faith of our Lord. On which Rock the Church is built juxta omnem modum every way First that he Confessed Christ to be the Son of the Living God and by and by he heard Upon this Rock of solid Faith I will build my Church And the same Confession he made of the Holy Ghost Thus was S. Peter a solid Rock upon which the Church was founded omni modo every way That is the Faith of the Church was ‖ confirmed by him in every Point But that S. Peter was any
Assembly it is probable 't is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Num. 2 Nor is this Hooker's alone nor is it newly thought on by us It is a Ground in Nature which Grace doth ever set right never undermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councel at Carthage would have presently yelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authority confirmed by Miracles and Antiquity S. Peter's Chair and Succession from it Motives to keep him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearly demonstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an evident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place every where but where these cannot be had there must be Submission to Authority Num. 3 And doth not Bellarmine himself grant this For speaking of Councels he delivers this Proposition That Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours and that in a Councel do proceed lawfully or not But then having bethought himself that Inferiours at all times and in all Causes are not to be cast off he addes this Exception Unless it manifestly appear that an intolerable Errour be committed So then if such an Errour be and be manifest Inferiours may do their duty and a Councel must yeeld unless you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a Private Spirit for neither doth he express who shall judge whether the Errour be intolerable Num. 4 This will not down with you but the Definition of a General Councel is and must be infallible Your Fellows tell us and you can affirm no more That the Voice of the Church determining in Councel is not Humane but Divine That is well Divine then sure Infallible yea but the Proposition sticks in the throat of them that would utter it It is not Divine simply but in a manner Divine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speak loudest in that manner in which it is not Divine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in an higher kinde than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in Testimony and Matter to be believed but the Church as the efficient Cause of Faith and in some sort the very formal Is not this Blasphemy Doth not this knock against all evidence of Truth and his own Grounds that says it Against all evidence of Truth For in all Ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians do do with the same breath grant it most undoubted and infallible But all men have not so judged of the Churches Definitions though they have in greatest Obedience submitted to them And against his own Grounds that says it For the Scripture is absolutely and every way Divine the Churches Definition is but sâ—o modo in a sort or manner Divine But that which is but in a sort can never be a Foundation in an Higher Degree than that which is absolute and every way such Therefore neither can the Definition of the Church be so Infallible as the Scripture much less in altiori genere in a higher kinde than the Scripture But because when all other things fail you flie to this That the Churches Definition in a General Councel is by Inspiration and so Divine and Infallible my haste shall not carry me from a little Consideration of that too Num. 1 Sixthly then If the Definition of a General Councel be infallible then the Infallibility of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Means that prove it or in the Conclusion not the Means or in the Means not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Means For there are divers Deliberations in General Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Means by which they prove it not infallible Not in the second The Conclusion and not the Means For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the Premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Councel uses be sometimes uncertain as is proved before the Conclusion cannot be Infallible Not in the third The Means and not the Conclusion For that cannot be true and necessary if the Means be so And this I am sure you will never grant because if you should you must deny the Infallibility which you seek to establish Num. 2 To this for I confess the Argument is old but can never be worn out nor shifted off your great Master Stapleton who is miserably hamper'd in it and indeed so are you all answers That the Infallibility of a Councel is in the second Course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be uncertain and fallible in the Means and Proof of it How comes this to pass It is a thing altogether unknown in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Num. 3 Well that is granted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes Knowledge But we shall have Reasons for it First because the Church is discursive and uses the Weights and Moments of Reason in the Means but is Prophetical and depends upon immediate Revelation from the Spirit of God in delivering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appear and all Controversie is at an end Well I will not discourse here To what end there is any use of Means if the Conclusion be Prophetical which yet is justly urged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Prophetical in the Conclusion I speak still of the present Church â— for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophecie and immediate Revelation was ever Prophetick in the Definition but then that was Infallible in the Means too That since it delivers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can bear it there must be some Supernatural Authority which must deliver this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flie to immediate Revelation now the Enthusiaesm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very Exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophecie in the Conclusion And I know no other thing that can warrant it If you think the Tradition of the Church can make the world beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that says This is an Universal Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a General Councel are Prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that says it of his own Authority that he thinks so
Nay make it appear that ever any Prophet in that which he delivered from God as infallible Truth was ever discursive at all in the Means Nay make it but probable in the ordinary course of Prophecie I hope you go no higher nor will I offer at God's absolute Power That that which is discursive in the Means can be Prophetick in the Conclusion you shall be my great Apollo for ever In the mean time I have learnt this from yours That all Prophecy is by Vision Inspiration c. that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophecie is an Illumination not always present but when the Word of the Lord came to them that was not by discourse And yet you say again That this Prophetick Infallibility of the Church is not gotten without study and Industry You should do well to tell us too why God would put his Church to study for the Spirit of Prophecie which never any Particular Prophet was put unto And whosoever shall studie for it shall not do it in vain since Prophecie is a Gift and can never be an acquired Habit. And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authority of General Councels dares not come at this Rock He prefers the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the Deliberations of Councels and so do we but I do not remember that ever he speaks out That the Conclusion is delivered by Prophecie or Revelation Sure he sounded the shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speak plainly would his bad Cause let him be constant Councels do deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neither have they nor do they write any immediate Revelations Num. 4 The second Reason why Stapleton will have it Prophetick in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be believed though it use Means yet it stands not upon Art or Means or Argument but the Revelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but an Habit of Knowledge This for the first Part That the Church uses the Means but follows them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the later Part That then our admitting the Decree of a Councel would be no Assent of Faith but an Habit of Knowledge what great inconvenience is there if it be granted For I think it is undoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Believer that cannot prove and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing even this the very wisdom of the Church in her Doctrines ascribes Understanding to one sort of men and Belief to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him Num. 5 Now for farther satisfaction if not of you yet of others this may well be thought on Man lost by sin in the Integrity of his Nature and cannot have Light enough to see the way to Heaven but by Grace This Grace was first merited after given by Christ this Grace is first kindled by Faith by which if we agree not to some Supernatural Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply we can never see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it self clears the eye of Reason it never puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the very Catholike Church it self is reasonable as well as diffused every where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath been able either to convert or convince or at least stop the mouthes of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the very Point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamental Points of Faith without which there is no Salvation as they cannot be proved by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councel nor ever were they attempted they are so plain set down in the Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessary deduction out of these Prime Articles of Faith General Councels determine any thing as they have done in Nice and the rest there is no inconvenience that one and the same Canon of the Councel should be believed as it reflects upon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable and yet known to the Learned by the Means and Proof by which that Deduction is vouched and made good And again the Conclusion of a Councel suppose that in Nice about the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father in it self considered is indemonstrable by Reason There I believe and assent in Faith But the same Conclusion if you give me ground of Scripture and the Creed and somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or Knowledge is demonstrable by natural Reason against any Arrian in the world And if it be demonstrable I may know it and have an Habit of it And what inconvenience in this For he weaker sort of Christians which cannot deduce when they have the Principle granted they are to rest upon the Definition onely and their Assent is meer Faith yea and the Learned too where there is not a Demonstration evident to them assent by Faith onely and not by Knowledge And what inconvenience in this Nay the necessity of Nature is such that these Principles once given the understanding of man cannot rest but it must be thus And the Apostle would never have required a man to be able to give a Reason and an account of the hope that is in him if he might not be able to know his account or have lawful interest to give it when he knew it without prejudicing his Faith by his Knowledge And suppose exact Knowledge and meer Belief cannot stand together in the same Person in regard of the same thing by the same means yet that doth not make void this Truth For where is that exact knowledge or in whom that must not meerly in points of Faith believe the Article or ground upon which they rest But when that is once believed it can demonstrate many things from it And Definitions of Councels are not Principia Fidei Principles of Faith but Deductions from them Num. 1 And now because you ask Wherein are we nearer to Unity by a Councel if a Councel may erre Besides the Answer given I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church which most able to preserve or reduce Christian Peace The Romane That a Councel cannot erre or the Protestants That it can And this I propose not as a Rule but leave the Christian world to consider of it
That it would call again and reform yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance upon just cause made evident that this Representing Body had failed in Trust or Truth And this Power no Body Collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Councel or call it what you will that represents it Nay in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councel hath power to order settle and Define differences arisen concerning Faith This Power the Councel hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparent Apostolical Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held have is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches power front God And this Power the Church cannot farther give away to a General Councel than that the Decrees of it shall binde all Particulars and it self but not binde the whole Church from calling again and in the After-calls upon just Cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts. I say upon just Cause For if the Councel be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approve the Councel and then the Definitions of it are Binding And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her own may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her Representative Body a Lawful General Councel And certain it is no Power but her own may do it Nor doth this open any gap to private Spirits For all Decisions in such a Councel are Binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councel shall remain the Supreme External Living Temporary Ecclesiastical Judge of all Controversies Onely the Whole Church and she alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendred to her to represent her self again in a new Councel and in it to order what was amiss Num. 7 Nay your Opinion is yet more unreasonable For you do not onely make the Definition of a General Councel but the Sentence of the Pope infallible nay more Infallible than it For any General Councel may erre with you if the Pope confirm it not So belike this Infallibility rests not in the Representative Body the Councel nor in the Whole Body the Church but in your Head of the Church the Pope of Rome Now I may ask you to what end such a trouble for a General Councel Or wherein are we nearer to Unity if the Pope confirm it not You answer though not in the Conference yet elsewhere That the Pope erres not especially giving Sentence in a General Councel And why especially Doth the Deliberation of a Councel help any thing to the Conclusion Surely not in your Opinion For you hold the Conclusion Prophetical the means fallible and fallible Deliberations cannot advance to a Prophetick Conclusion And just as the Councel is in Stapleton's Judgement for the Definition and the Proofs so is the Pope in the Judgement of Melch. Canus and them which followed him Prophetical in the Conclusion The Councel then is called but onely in effect to hear the Pope give his Sentence in more state Else what means this of Stapleton The Pope by a Councel joyned unto him acquires no new Power or Authority or Certainty in Judging no more than a Head is the wiser by joyning the Offices of the rest of the members to it than it is without them Or this of Bellarmine That the firmness and infallibility of a General Councel is onely from the Pope not partly from the Pope and partly from the Councel So belike the Presence is necessary not the Assistance Which opinion is the most groundless and worthless that ever offered to take possession of the Christian Church And I am perswaded many Learned men among your selves scorn it at the very heart And I avow it I have heard some Learned and Judicious Romane Catholikes utterly condemn it And well they may For no man can affirm it but he shall make himself a scorn to all the Learned men of Christendom whose Judgements are not Captivated by Romane power And for my own part I am clear of Jacobus Almain's Opinion And a great wonder it is to me That they which affirm the Pope cannot erre do not affirm likewise that he cannot sin And I verily believe they would be bold enough to affirm it did not the daily Works of the Popes compel them to believe the Contrary For very many of them have led lives quite Contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Nay such lives as no Epicurean Monster storied out to the world hath out-gone them in sensuality or other gross Impiety if their own Historians be true Take your choice of John the thirteenth about the year 966. Or of Sylvester the second about the year 999. Or John the eighteenth about the year 1003. Or Benedict the ninth about the year 1033. Or Boniface the eighth about the year 1294. Or Alexander the sixth about the year 1492. And yet these and their like must be Infallible in their Dictates and Conclusions of Faith Do your own believe it Surely no. For Alphonsus à Castro tells us plainly That he doth not believe that any man can be so gross and impudent a flatterer of the Pope as to attribute this unto him that he can neither erre nor mistake in expounding the holy Scripture This comes home And therefore it may well be thought it hath taken a shrewd Purge For these words are Express in the Edition at Paris 1534. But they are not to be found in that at Colen 1539. Nor in that at Antwerp 1556. Nor in that at Paris 1571. Harding says indeed Alphonsus left it out of himself in the following Editions Well First Harding says this but proves it not so I may chuse whether I will believe him or no. Secondly be it so that he did that cannot help their Cause a whit For say he did mislike the sharpness of the Phrase or ought else in this speech yet he alter'd not his Judgement of the thing For in all these later Editions he speaks as home if not more than in the first and says Expresly That the Pope may erre not onely as a private person but as Pope And in difficult Cases he addes That the Pope ought to Consult Viros doctos men of Learning And this also was the Opinion of the Ancient Church of Christ concerning the Pope and his Infallibility For thus Liberius and he ◠Pope himself writes to Athanasius Brother Athanasius if you think in the presence of God and Christ as I do I pray subscribe this Confession which is thought to be the true Faith of the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church that
her Corruptions were part of the Catholike Faith of Christ. So the whole passage is a meer begging of the Question and then threatning upon it without all ground of Reason or Charity In the mean time let A. C. look to himself that in his false security he run not into the danger and loss of his own salvation while he would seem to take such care of ours But though this Argument prevails with the weak yet it is much stronger in the cunning than the true force of it For all Arguments are very moving that lay their ground upon the Adversaries Confession especially if it be confessed and avouched to be true But if you would speak truly and say Many Protestants indeed confess there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withal that the Errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the Truth manifested the heart of this Argument were utterly broken Besides the force of this Argument lies upon two things one directly Expressed the other but as upon the By. Num. 3 That which is expressed is We and our Adversaries consent that there is salvation to some in the Roman Church What would you have us as malicious at least as rash as your selves are to us and deny you so much as possibility of Salvation If we should we might make you in some things strain for a Proof But we have not so learned Christ as either to return evil for evil in this heady course or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ And therefore seek not to help our Cause by denying this comfort to silly Christians as you most fiercely do where you can come to work upon them And this was an old trick of the Donatists For in the Point of Baptism whether that Sacrament was true in the Catholike Church or in the part of Donatus they exhorted all to be baptized among them Why Because both parts granted that Baptism was true among the Donatists which that peevish Sect most unjustly denied the sound part as S. Augustine delivers it I would ask now Had not the Orthodox true Baptism among them because the Donatists denied it injuriously Or should the Orthodox against Truth have denied Baptism among the Donatists either to cry quittance with them or that their Argument might not be the stronger because both parts granted But Mark this how far you run from all common Principles of Christian Peace as well as Christian Truth while you deny salvation most unjustly to us from which you are farther off your selves Besides if this were or could be made a concluding Argument I pray why do not you believe with us in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England That in the most Blessed Sacrament the Worthy receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ truly and really and of all the Benefits of his Passion Your Roman Catholikes add a manner of this his Prefence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this Presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then even for this Consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England than with the Roman or Lutheran Because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion Nay Suarez himself and he a very Learned Adversary what say you to this A. C doth Truth force this from him Confesses plainly That to Believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Salvation And yet he knew well the Church had determined it And Bellarmine after an intricate tedious and almost inexplicable Discourse about an Aductive Conversion A thing which neither Divinity nor Philosophy ever heard of till then is at last forced to come to this Whatsoever is concerning the manner and forms of speech illud tenendum eâ—t this is to be held that the Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ is substantial but after a secret and ineffable manner and not like in all things to any natural Conversion whatsoever Now if he had left out Conversion and affirmed only Christs real Presence there after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner no man could have spoke better And therefore if you will force the Argument always to make that the safest way of Salvation which differing Parties agree on why do you not yield to the force of the same Argument in the Belief of the Sacrament one of the most immediate means of Salvation where not onely the most but all agree And your own greatest Clarks cannot tell what to say to the Contrary Num. 4 I speak here for the force of the Argument which certainly in it self is nothing though by A. C. made of great account For he says 'T is a Confession of Adversaries extorted by Truth Just as Petilian the Donatist brag'd in the case of Baptism But in truth 't is nothing For the Syllogism which it frames is this In Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on But Papists and Protestants which are the differing Parties agree in this that there is salvation possible to be found in the Roman Church Therefore 't is safest for a man to be and continue in the Roman Church To the Minor Proposition then I observe this only that though many Learned Protestants grant this all do not And then that Proposition is not Universally true nor able to sustain the Conclusion For they do not in this all agree nay I doubt not but there are some Protestants which can and do as stifly and as churlishly deny them Salvation as they do us And A. C. should do well to consider whether they do it not upon as good reason at least But for the Major Proposition Namely That in Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the Adversary confesses or the Differing Parties agree on I say that is no Metaphysical Principle but a bare Contingent Proposition and being indefinitely taken may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applied but being taken universally is false and not able to lead in the Conclusion Now that this Proposition In point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary confesses hath no strength in it self but is sometimes true and sometimes false as the Matter is about which it is conversant is most evident First by Reason Because Consent of disagreeing Parties is neither Rule nor Proof of Truth For Herod and
him in both all the rest of his life for this blessing thus bestowed on him Now thus far these dissenting Churches agree that in the Eucharist there is a Sacrifice of Duty and a Sacrifice of Praise and a Sacrifice of Commemoration of Christ. Therefore according to the former Rule and here in truth too 't is safest for a man to believe the Commemorative the the Praising and the Performing Sacrifice and to offer them duely to God and leave the Church of Rome in this Particular to her Superstitions that I may say no more And would the Church of Rome stand to A. C's Rule and believe dissenting Parties where they agree were it but in this and that before of the Real presence it would work far toward the Peace of Christendom But the Truth is They pretend the Peace of Christendom but care no more for it than as it may uphold at least if not increase their own Greatness My fourth Instance shall be in the Sacrament of Baptism and the things required as necessary to make it effectual to the Receiver They in the common received Doctrine of the Church of Rome are three The Matter the Form and the Intention of the Priest to do that which the Church doth and intends he should do Now all other Divines as well ancient as modern and both the dissenting Churches also agree in the two former but many deny that the Intention of the Priest is necessary Will A. C. hold his Rule That 't is safest to believe in a controverted Point of Faith that which the dissenting Parties agree on or which the Adverse Part Confesses If he will not then why should he press that as a Rule to direct others which he will not be guided by himself And if he will then he must go professedly against the Councel of Trent which hath determined it as deside as a Point of Faith that the Intention of the Priest is necessary to make the Baptism true and valid Though in the History of that Councel 't is most apparent the Bishops and other Divines there could not tell what to answer to the Bishop of Minors a Neapolitane who declared his Judgement openly against it in the face of that Councel My fifth Instance is We say and can easily prove there are divers Errours and some gross ones in the Roman Missal But I my self have heard some Jesuites confess that in the Liturgie of the Church of England there 's no positive Errour And being pressed why then they refused to come to our Churches and serve God with us They answered they could not do it Because though our Liturgie had in it nothing ill yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good and was in their Service Now here let A. C. consider again Here is a plain Concession of the adverse Part And both agree there 's nothing in our Service but that which is holy and good What will the Jesuite or A. C. say to this If he forsake his ground then it is not safest in point of Divine Worship to joyn in Faith as the dissenting Parties agree or to stand to the Adversaries own Confession If he be so hardy as to maintain it then the English Liturgy is better and safer to worship God by than the Roman Mass. Which yet I presume A. C. will not confess Num. 8 In all these Instances the Matter so falling out of it self for the Argument enforces it not the thing is true but not therefore true because the dissenting Parties agree in it or because the adverse Part Confesses it Yet lest the Jesuite or A. C. for him farther to deceive the weak should infer that this Rule in so many Instances is true and false in none but that one concerning Baptism among the Donatists and therefore the Argument is true ut plerumque as for the most and that therefore 't is the safest way to believe that which dissenting Parties agree on I will lay down some other Particulars of as great Consequence as any can be in or about Christian Religion And if in them A. C. or any Jesuite dare say that 't is safest to believe as the dissenting Parties agree or as the adverse Party confesses I dare say he shall be an Heretick in the highest degree if not an Insidel And First where the Question was betwixt the Orthodox and the Arrian whether the Son of God were consubstantial with the Father The Orthodox said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance The Arrian came within in a Letter of the Truth and said he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of like substance Now he that says he is of the same substance confesses he is of like substance and more that is Identity of Substance for Identity contains in it all Degrees of likeness and more But he that acknowledges and believes that He is of like nature and no more denies the Identity Therefore if this Rule be true That it is safest to believe that in which the dissenting Parties agree or which the Adverse Part Confesses which A. C. makes such great vaunt of then 't is safest for a Christian to believe that Christ is of like nature with God the Father and be free from Belief that He is Consubstantial with him which yet is Concluded by the Councel of Nice as necessary to Salvation and the Contrary Condemned for Damnable Heresie Secondly in the Question about the Resurrection between the Orthodox and diverse â—ross Hereticks of old and the Anabaptists and Libertines of late For all or most of these dissenting Parties agree that there ought to be a Resurrection from sin to a state of Grace and that this Resurrection only is meant in divers Passages of holy Scripture together with the Life of the Soul which they are content to say is Immortal But they utterly deny any Resurrection of the Body after Death So with them that Article of the Creed is gone Now then if any man will guide his Faith by this Rule of A. C. The Consent of dissenting Parties or the Confession of the Adverse Part he must deny the Resurrection of the Body from the Grave to Glory and believe none but that of the Soul from sin to Grace which the Adversaries Confess and in which the Dissenting Parties agree Thirdly in the great Dispute of all others about the Unity of the Godhead All dissenting Parties Jew Turk and Christian Among Christians Orthodox and Anti-Trinitarian of old And in these later times Orthodox and Socinian that Horrid and mighty Monster of all Heresies agree in this That there is but one God And I hope it is as necessary to believe one God our Father as one Church our Mother Now will A. C. say here 't is safest believing as the dissenting Parties agree or as the Adverse Parties Confess namely That there is but one God and so deny the Trinity and therewith the Son of God the Saviour of
the world Fourthly in a Point as Fundamental in the Faith as this Namely whether Christ be true and very God For which very Point most of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church laid down their lives The dissenting Parties here were the Orthodox Believers who affirm He is both God and Man for so our Creed teaches us And all those Hereticks which affirm Christ to be Man but deny him to be God as the Arrians and Carpocratians and Cerinthus and Hebion with others and at this day the Socinians These dissenting Parties agree fully and clearly That Christ is Man Well then Dare A. C. stick to his Rule here and say 't is safest for a Christian in this great Point of Faith to govern his Belief by the Consent of these dissenting Parties or the Confession and acknowledgment of the Adverse Party and so settle his Belief that Christ is a meer Man and not God I hope he dares not So then this Rule To Resolve a mans Faith into that in which the Dissenting Parties agree or which the Adverse Part confesses is as often false as true And false in as Great if not Greater Matters than those in which it is true And where 't is true A. C. and his fellows dare not govern themselves by it the Church of Rome condemning those things which that Rule proves And yet while they talk of Certainty nay of Infallibility less will not serve their turns they are driven to make use of such poor shifts as these which have no certainty at all of Truth in them but infer falshood and Truth alike And yet for this also men will be so weak or so wilful as to be seduced by them Num. 9 I told you before That the force of the preceding Argument lies upon two things The one expressed and that 's past the other upon the Bye which comes now to be handled And that is your continual poor Out-cry against us That we cannot be saved because we are out of the Church Sure if I thought I were out I would get in as fast as I could For we confess as well as you That Out of the Catholike Church of Christ there is no Salvation But what do you mean by Out of the Church Sure out of the Roman Church Why but the Roman Church and the Church of England are but two distinct Members of that Catholike Church which is spread over the face of the Earth Therefore Rome is not the House where the Church dwels but Rome it self as well as other particular Churches dwels in this great Universal House unless you will shut up the Church in Rome as the Donatists did in Africk I come a little lower Rome and other National Churches are in this Universal Catholike House as so many Daughters to whom under Christ the care of the Houshold is committed by God the Father and the Catholike Church the Mother of all Christians Rome as an Elder Sister but not the Eldest neither had a great Care committed unto her in and from the prime times of the Church and to her Bishop in her but at this time to let pass many brawls that have formerly been in the House England and some other Sisters of hers are fallen out in the Family What then Will the Father and the Mother God and the Church cast one Childe out because another is angry with it Or when did Christ give that power to an Elder Sister that She and her Steward the Bishop there should thrust out what Childe she pleased Especially when she her self is justly accused to have given the Offence that is taken in the House Or will not both Father and Mother be sharper to Her for this unjust and unnatural usage of her younger Sisters but their dear Children Nay is it not the next way to make them turn her out of doors that is so unnatural to the rest It is well for all Christian Men and Churches that the Father and Mother of them are not so curst as some would have them And Salvation need not be feared of any dutiful Childe nor Outing from the Church because this Elder Sisters faults are discovered in the House and she grown froward for it against them that complained But as Children cry when they are waked out of sleep so do you and wrangle with all that come neer you And Stapleton confesses That ye were in a dead sleep and over-much rest when the Protestants stole upon you Now if you can prove that Rome is properly The Catholick Church it self as you commonly call it speak out and prove it In the mean time you may Mark this too if you will and it seems you do for here you forget not what the Bishop said to you F. The Lady which doubted said the Bishop to me may be better saved in it than you B. § 36 I said so indeed Mark that too Where yet by the way these words Than you do not suppose Person only For I will Judge no man that hath another Master to stand or fall to But they suppose Calling and Sufficiency in the Person Than you that is Than any man of your Calling and Knowledge of whom more is required And then no question of the truth of this speech That that person may better be saved that is easier than you than any man that knows so much of Truth and opposes against it as you and others of your Calling do How far you know Truth other men may judge by your Proofs and Causes of Knowledge but how far you oppose Truth known to you that is within and no man can know but God and your selves Howsoever where the Foundation is but held there for ordinary men it is not the vivacity of Understanding but the simplicity of Believing that makes them safe For S. Augustine speaks there of men in the Church and no man can be said simply to be Out of the Visible Church that is Baptized and holds the Foundation And as it is the simplicity of Believing that makes them safe yea safest so is it sometimes A quickness of Understanding that loving it self and some by-respects too well makes men take up an unsafe way about the Faith So that there 's no Question but many were saved in corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders unless they repented before death were lost And S. Augustine's Rule will be true That in all Corruptions of the Church there will ever be a difference between an Heretick and a plain well-meaning man that is misled and believes an Heretick Yet here let me adde this for fuller Expression This must be understood of such Leaders and Hereticks as refuse to hear the Churches Instruction or to use all the means they can to come to the knowledge of the Truth For else if they do this Erre they may but Hereticks they are not as is most manifest in S. Cyprian's
would fain through Master Roger's sides wound the Church of England as if she were unsetled in the Article of Christs Descent into Hell pag. 21. And he endeavours the same in this pag. 46. In the first he is very earnest to prove That the Schism was made by the Protestants pag. 23. And he is as earnest for it in this pag. 55. In the first he lays it for a Ground That Corruption of Manners is no just Cause of separation from Faith or Church pag. 24. And the same Ground he lays in this pag. 55. In the first he will have it That the Holy Ghost gives continual and Infallible Assistance to the Church pag. 24. And just so will he have it in this pag. 53. In the first he makes much adoe about the Erring of the Greek Church pag. 28. And as much makes he in this pag. 44. In the first he makes a great noyse about the place in St. Augustine Ferendus est disputator errans c. pag. 18. and 24. And so doth he here also pag. 45. In the first he would make his Proselytes believe That he and his Cause have mighty advantage by that Sentence of S. Bernard 'T is intolerable Pride And that of S. Augustine 'T is insolent madness to oppose the Doctrine or Practice of the Catholike Church pag. 25. And twice he is at the same Art in this pag. 56. and 73. In the first he tells us That Calvin confesses That in the Reformation there was a Departure from the whole world pag. 25. And though I conceive Calvine spake this but of the Roman world and of no Voluntary but a forced Departure and wrote this to Melancthon to work Unity among the Reformers not any way to blast the Reformation Yet we must hear of it again in this pag. 56. But over and above the rest one Place with his own gloss upon it pleases him extreamly 'T is out of S. Athanasius his Creed That whosoever doth not hold it entire that is saith he in all Points and Inviolate that is saith he in the true unchanged and uncorrupted sense proposed unto us by the Pastors of his Catholike Church without doubt he shall perish everlastingly This he hath almost verbatim in the first page 20. And in the Epistle of the Publisher of that Relation to the Reader under the Name of W. I. and then agian the very same in this if not with some more disadvantage to himself page 70. And perhaps had I leasure to search after them more Points than these Now the Reasons which moved me to set down these Particulars thus distinctly are two The One that whereas the Jesuite affirms that in a second Conference all the speech was about Particular matters and little or nothing about the main and great general Point of a Continual Infallible Visible Church in which that Lady required satisfaction and that therefore this third Conference was held It may hereby appear that the most material both Points and Proofs are upon the matter the very same in all the three Conferences though little be related of the second Conference by A. C. as appears in the Preface of the Publisher W. I. to the Reader So this tends to nothing but Ostentation and shew The Other is that Whereas these men boast so much of their Cause and their Ability to defend it It cannot but appear by this and their handling of other Points in Divinity that they labour indeed but no otherwise then like an Horse in a Mill round about in the same Circle no farther at night then at noon The same thing over and over again from Tu es Petrus to Pasce oves from thou art Peter to Do thou feed my Sheep And back again the same way F. The Lady asked Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith Upon my soul said the Bishop you may Upon my soul said I there is but one saving Faith and that is the Roman B. § 38 Num. 1 So it seems I was consident for the Faith professed in the Church of England else I would not have taken the salvation of another upon my soul. And sure I had reason of this my Confidence For to believe the Scripture and the Creeds to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church To receive the four great General Councels so much magnified by Antiquity To believe all Points of Doctrine generally received as Fundamental in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to live and die cannot but give salvation And therefore I went upon a sure ground in the adventure of my soul upon that Faith Besides in all the Points of Doctrine that are controverted between us I would fain see any one Point maintained by the Church of England that can be proved to depart from the Foundation You have many dangerous Errours about the very Foundation in that which you call the Roman Faith But there I leave you to look to your own soul and theirs whom you seduce Yet this is true too That there is but one saving Faith But then every thing which you call De Fide of the Faith because some Councel or other hath defined it is not such a Breach from that One saving Faith as that he which expresly believes it not nay as that he which believes the Contrary is excluded from Salvation so his Disobedience therewhile offer no violence to the Peace of the Church nor the Charity which ought to be among Christians And Bellarmine is forced to grant this There are many things de Fide which are not absolutely necessary to salvation Therefore there is a Latitude in the Faith especially in reference to different mens salvation To set Bounds to this and strictly to define it for particular men Just thus far you must believe in every Particular or incur Damnation is no work for my Pen. These two things I am sure of One That your peremptory establishing of so many things that are remote Deductions from the Foundation to be believed as Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation hath with other Errours lost the Peace and Unity of the Church for which you will one day Answer And the other That you of Rome are gone farther from the Foundation of this One saving Faith than can ever be proved we of the Church of England have done Num. 2 But here A. C. bestirs himself finding that he is come upon the Point which is indeed most considerable And first he answers That it is not sufficient to beget a Confidence in this Case to say we believe the Scriptures and the Creeds in the same sense which the Ancient Primitive Church believed them c. Most true if we onely say and do not believe And let them which believe not while they say they do look to it on all sides for on all sides I doubt not but such there are But if we do say it
for the Inference which you would draw out of it that 's answered at large already But than A. C. adds That I say but without any proof that the Romanists have many dangerous errours but that I neither tell them which they be nor why I think them dangerous but that I leave them to look to their own souls which he says they do and have no cause to doubt How much the Jesuite and A. C. have said in this Conference without any solid Proof I again submit to judgment as also what Proofs I have made If in this very place I have added none 't is because I had made proof enough of the self-same thing before Where lest he should want and call for Proof again I have plainly laid together some of the many Dangerous errours which are charged upon them So I tell you which at least some of which they be and their very naming will shew their danger And if I did remit you to look to your own souls I hope there was no offence in that if you do it and do it so that you have no cause to doubt And the reason why you doubt not A. C. tells us is Because you had no new device of your own or any other mens nor any thing contrary to Scripture but all most conformable to Scriptures interpreted by Union Consont of Fathers and Definitions of Councels Indeed if this were true you had little cause to doubt in point of your Belief But the truth is you do hold new Devices of your own which the Primitive Church was never acquainted with And some of those so far from being conformable as that they are little less than contradictory to Scripture In which particulars and divers others the Scriptures are not interpreted by Union or Consent of Fathers or Definitions of Councels unless perhaps by some late Councels packed of purpose to do that ill service I have given Instances enough before yet some you shall have here lest you should say again that I affirm without proof or Instance I pray then whose Device was Transubstantiation And whose Communion under one kinde And whose Deposition and Unthroning nay Killing of Princes and the like if they were not yours For I dare say and am able to prove there 's none of these but are rather contrary than conformable to Scripture Neither is A. C. or any Jesuite able to shew any Scripture interpreted by Union or Consent of Fathers of the Primitive Church to prove any one of these Nor any Definition of Ancient Councels but only Lateran for Transubstantiation and that of Constance for the Eucharist in one kinde which two are Modern at least far downward from the Primitive Church and have done more mischief to the Church by those their Determinations than will be cured I fear in many Generations So whatever A. C. thinks yet I had reason enough to leave the Jesuite to look to his own soul. Num. 11 But A. C. having as it seems little new matter is at the same again and over and over it must go That there is but one saving Faith That this one Faith was once the Romane And that I granted one might be saved in the Romane Faith To all which I have abundantly answered before Marry then he infers That he sees not how we can have our souls saved without we entirely hold this Faith being the Catholike Faith which S. Athanasius saith unless a man hold entirely he cannot be saved Now here again is more in the Conclusion than in the Premises and so the Inference fails For say there was a time in which the Catholike and the Romane Faith were one and such a time there was when the Romane Faith was Catholike and famous through the world Rom. 1. Yet it doth not follow since the Councel of Trent hath added a new Creed that this Romane Faith is now the Catholike For it hath added extranea things without the Foundation disputable if not false Conclusions to the Faith So that now a man may Believe the whole and entire Catholike Faith even as S. Athanasius requires and yet justly refuse for dross a great part of that which is now the Romane Faith And Athanasius himself as if he meant to arm the Catholike Faith against all corrupting Additions hath in the beginning of his Creed these words This is the Catholike Faith This and no other This and no Other then here follows And again at the end of his Creed This is the Catholike Faith This and no more than is here delivered always presupposing the Apostles Creed as Athanasius did and this is the largest of all Creeds So that if A. C. would wipe his eyes from the mist which rises about Tyber he might see how our souls may be saved believing the Catholike Faith and that entire without the Addition of Romane Leaven But if he cannot or I doubt will not see it 't is enough that by Gods grace we see it And therefore once more I leave him and his to look to their own souls Num. 12 After this A. C. is busie in unfolding the meaning of this great Father of the Church S. Athanasius And he tells us That he says in his Creed That without doubt every man shall perish that holds not the Catholike Faith entire that is saith A. C. in every Point of it and inviolate that is in the right sense and for the true formal reason of divine Revelation sufficiently applied to our understanding by the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church proposing to us by her Pastors this Revelation Well we shall not differ much from A. C. in expounding the meaning of S. Athanasius yet some few things I shall here observe And first I agree that he which hopes for Salvation must believe the Catholike Faith whole and entire in every Point Next I agree that he must likewise hold it inviolate if to believe it in the right sense be to hold it inviolate But by A. C's leave the Believing of the Creed in the right sense is comprehended in the first branch The keeping of it whole and entire For no man can properly be said to believe the Whole Creed that believes not the Whole Sense as well as the Letter of it and as entirely But thirdly for the word inviolate 't is indeed used by him that translated Athanasius But the Father 's own words following the Common Edition are That he that will be saved must keep the Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the sound and entire Faith And it cannot be a sound Faith unless the Sense be as whole and entire as the Letter of the Creed And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is compounded of the Privative particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is reproach or infamy So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the holding of the entire
Faith in such holiness of life and conversation as is without all infamy and reproach That is as our English renders that Creed exceeding well Which Faith unless a man do keep whole and undefiled even with such a life as Monius himself shall not be able to carp at So Athanasius who certainly was passing able to express himself in his own Language in the beginning of that his Creed requires That we keep it entire without diminution and undesiled without blame And at the end that we believe it faithfully without wavering But inviolate is the mistaken word of the old Interpreter and with no great knowledge made use of by A. C. And then fourthly though this be true Divinity That he which hopes for Salvation must believe the Whole Creed and in the right sense too if he be able to comprehend it yet I take the true and first meaning of inviolate could Athanasius his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have signified so not to be the holding of the true sense but not to offer violence oâ— a forced sence or meaning upon the Creed which every man doth not that yet believes it not in a true sence For not to believe the true sence of the Creed is one thing But 't is quite another to force a wrong sence upon it Fifthly a Reason would be given also why A. C. is so earnest for the whole Faith and bauks the word which goes with it which is holy or undesiled For Athanasius doth alike exclude from Salvation those which keep not the Catholike Faith holy as well as these which keep it not whole I doubt this was to spare many of his holy Fathers the Popes who were as far as any the very â—ewdâ—st among men without exception from keeping the Catholike Faith holy Sixthly I agree to the next part of his Exposition That a man that will be saved must believe the whole Creed for the true formal reason of divine Revelation For upon the Truth of God thus revealed by Himself 〈◊〉 the infallible certainty of the Christian Faith But I do not grant that this is within the compass of S. Athanasius his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor of the word Inviolate But in that respect 't is a meer strain of A. C. And then lastly though the whole Catholike Church be sufficient in applying this to us and our Belief not our Understanding which A. C. is at again yet Infallible She is not in the proposal of this Revelation to us by every of her Pastors some whereof amongst you as well as others neglect or forget at least to feed Christ's sheep as Christ and his Church hath fed them Num. 13 But now that A. C. hath taught us as you see the meaning of S. Athanasius in the next place he tells us That if we did believe any one Article we finding the same formal Reason in all and applied sufficiently by the same means to all would easily believe all Why surely we do not believe any one Article onely but all the Articles of the Christian Faith And we believe them for the same formal Reason in all namely Because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his Word and by his Churches Ministration But so long as they do not believe all in this sort saith A. C. Look you He tells us we do not believe all when we profess we do Is this man become as God that he can better tell what we believe than we our selves Surely we do believe all and in that sort too Though I believe were S. Athanasius himself alive again and a plain man should come to him and tell him he believed his Creed in all and every particular he would admit him for a good Catholike Christian though he were not able to express to him the formal reason of that his belief Yea but saith A. C. while they will as all Hereticks do make choice of what they will and what they will not believe without relying upon the Infallible Authority of the Catholike Church they cannot have that one saving Faith in any one Article Why but whatsoever Hereticks do we are not such nor do we so For they which believe all the Articles as once again I tell you we do make no choice And we do relie upon the Infallible Authority of the Word of God and the whole Catholike Church And therefore we both can have and have that one saving Faith which believes all the Articles entirely though we cannot believe that any particular Church is infallible Num. 14 And yet again A. C. will not thus be satisfied but on he goes and adds That although we believe the same truth which other good Catholikes do in some Articles yet not believing them for the same formal reason of Divine Revelation sufficiently applied by Infallible Church-Authority c. we cannot be said to have one and the same Infallible and Divine Faith which other good Catholike Christians have who believe the Articles for this formal Reason sufficiently made known to them not by their own fancy nor the fallible Authority of humane deductions but by the Infallible Authority of the Church of God If A. C. will still say the same thing I must still give the same answer First he confesses we believe the same Truth in some Articles I pray mark his phrase the same Truth in some Articles with other good Catholike Christians so far his Pen hath told Truth against his will for he doth not I wot well intend to call us Catholikes and yet his Pen being truer than himself hath let it fall For the word other cannot be so used as here it is but that we as well as they must be good Catholikes For he that shall say the old Romans were valiant as well as other men supposes the Romans to be valiant men And he that shall say The Protestants believe some Articles as well as other good Catholikes must in propriety of speech suppose them to be good Catholikes Secondly as we do believe those some Articles so do we believe them and all other Articles of Faith for the same formal reason and so applied as but just before I have expressed Nor do we believe any one Article of Faith by our own fancy or by fallible Authority of humane deductions but next to the Infallible Authority of God's Word we are guided by his Church But then A. C. steps into a Conclusion whither we cannot follow him For he says that the Article to be believed must be sufficiently made known unto us by the Infallible Authority of the Church of God that is of men Infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God as all lawfully called continued and confirmed General Councels are assisted That the whole Church of God is infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God so that it cannot by any errour fall away totally from Christ the Foundation I make no doubt For if it could the gates
of Hell had prevailed against it which our Saviour assures me S. Matth. 16. they shall never be able to do But that all General Councels be they never so lawfully called continued and confirmed have Infallible Assistance I utterly deny 'T is true that a General Councel de post facto after 't is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then Infallible for it cannot erre in that which it hath already clearly and truly determined without Errour But that a General Councel à parte ante when it first sits down and continues to deliberate may truly be said to be Infallible in all its after-determinations whatsoever they shall be I utterly deny And it may be it was not without cunning that A. C. shuffled these words together Called Continued and Confirmed for be it never so lawfully called and continued it may erre But after 't is confirmed that is admitted by the whole Church then being found true it is also Infallible that is it deceives no man For so all Truth is and is to us when 't is once known to be Truth But then many times that Truth which being known is necessary and Infallible was before both contingent and fallible in the way of proving it and to us And so here a General Councel is a most probable but yet a fallible way of inducing Truth though the Truth once induced may be after 't is found necessary and Infallible And so likewise the very Councel it self for that particular in which it hath concluded Truth But A. C. must both speak and mean of a Councel set down to deliberate or else he says nothing Num. 15 Now hence A. C. gathers That though every thing defined to be a Divine Truth in General Councels is not absolutely necessary to be expresly known and actually believed as some other Truths are by all sorts yet no man may after knowledge that they are thus defined doubt deliberately much less obstiuately deny the Truth of any thing so defined Well in this Collection of A. C. First we have this granted That every thing defined in General Councels is not absolutely necessary to be expresly known and actually believed by all sorts of men And this no Protestant that I know denies Secondly it is affirmed that after knowledge that these Truths are thus defined no man may doubt deliberately much less obstinately deny any of them Truly Obstinately as the word is now in common use carries a fault along with it And it ought to be far from the temper of a Christian to be obstinate against the Definitions of a General Councel But that he may not upon very probable grounds in an humble and peaceable manner deliberately doubt yea and upon Demonstrative grounds constantly deny even such Definitions yet submitting himself and his grounds to the Church in that or another Councel is that which was never till now imposed upon Believers For 'T is one thing for a man deliberately to doubt and modestly to propose his Doubt for satisfaction which was ever lawful and is many times necessary And quite another thing for a man upon the pride of his own Judgment to refuse external Obedience to the Councel which to do was never Lawful nor can ever stand with any Government For there is all the reason in the world the Councel should be heard for it self as well as any such Recusant whatsoever and that before a Judge as good as it self at least And to what end did S. Augustine say That one General Councel might be amended by another the former by the Later if men might neither deny nor so much as deliberately doubt of any of these Truths defined in a General Councel And A. C. should have done well to have named but one ancient Father of the Primitive Church that ever affirmed this For the Assistance which God gives to the whole Church in general is but in things simply necessary to eternal Salvation therefore more than this cannot be given to a General Councel no nor so much But then if a General Councel shall forget it self and take upon it to define things not absolutely necessary to be expresly known or actually believed which are the things which A. C. here speaks of In these as neither General Councel no◠the whole Church have infallible Assistance so have Christians liberty modestly and peaceably and upon just grounds both deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny such the Councels Definitions For instance the Councel of Florence first defined Purgatory to be believed as a Divine Truth and matter of Faith if that Councel had Consent enough so to define it This was afterwards deliberately doubted of by the Protestants after this as constantly denied then confirmed by the Councel of Trent and an Anathema set upon the head of every man that denies it And yet scarce any Father within the first three hundred years ever thought of it Num. 16 I know Bellarmine affirms it boldly That all the Fathers both Greek and Latine did constantly teach Purgatory from the very Apostles times And where he brings his Proofs out of the Fathers for this Point he divides them into two Ranks In the first he reckons them which affirm Prayer for the dead as if that must necessarily infer Purgatory Whereas most certain it is that the Ancients had and gave other Reasons of Prayer for the dead then freeing them out of any Purgatory And this is very Learnedly and at large set down by the now Learned Primate of Armagh But then in the second he says there are most manifest places in the Fathers in which they affirm Purgatory And he names there no fewer then two and twenty of the Fathers A great Jury certainly did they give their Verdict with him But first within the three hundred years after Christ he names none but Tertullian Cyprian and Origen And Tertullian speaks expresly of Hell not of Purgatory S. Cyprian of a Purging to Amendment which cannot be after this Life As for Origen he I think indeed was the first Founder of Purgatory But of such an One as I believe Bellarmine dares not affirm For he thought there was no Punishment after this life but Purgatory and that not onely the most impious men but even the Devils themselves should be saved after they had suffered and been Purged enough Which is directly contrary to the Word of God expounded by his Church In the fourth and fifth the great and Learned Ages of the Church he names more as S. Ambrose But S. Ambr. says That some shall be saved quasi per ignem as it were by fire leaving it as doubtful what was meant by that Fire as the Place it self doth whence it is taken 1 Cor. 3. S. Hierome indeed names Purging by fire But 't is not very plain that he means it after this life And howsoever this is most plain That S. Hierome is
that shall endeavour to shake the foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded Num. 11 Secondly If S. Augustine did mean by Founded and Foundation the definition of the Church because of these words This thing is founded this is made firm by full Authority of the Church and the words following these to shake the foundation of the Church yet it can never follow out of any or all these Circumstances and these are all That all points defined by the Church are fundamental in the Faith For first no man denies but the Church is a Foundation That things defined by it are founded upon it And yet hence it cannot follow That the thing that is so founded is Fundamental in the Faith For things may be founded upon Humane Authority and be very certain yet not Fundamental in the Faith Nor yet can it follow This thing is founded therefore every thing determined by the Church is founded Again that which follows That those things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church cannot conclude they are therefore Fundamental in the Faith For full Church-Authority always the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by and not comprehended in it is but Church-Authority and Church-Authority when it is at Full Sea is not simply Divine therefore the Sentence of it not fundamental in the Faith And yet no erring Disputer may be indured to shake the foundation which the Church in Councel lays But plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may convince the Definition of the Councel if it be ill founded And the Articles of the Faith may easily prove it is not Fundamental if indeed and verily it be not so Num. 12 And I have read some-body that says is it not you That things are fundamental in the Faith two ways One in their Matter such as are all things which be so in themselves The other in the Manner such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of Faith And that so some things that are de modo of the manner of being are of Faith But in plain truth this is no more then if you should say Some things are fundamental in the Faith and some are not For wrangle while you will you shall never be able to prove that any thing which is but de modo a consideration of the manner of being only can possibly be fundamental in the Faith Num. 13 And since you make such a Foundation of this place I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you It is a venture but I shall finde it untempered Your Assertion is All Points defined by the Church are fundamental Your proof this place Because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full Authority of the Church Then it seems your meaning is that this point there spoken of The remission of Original Sin in Baptism of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full Sentence of a General Councel First if you say it was Bellarmine will tell you it is false and that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenical Councel but only in Nationals But Bellarmine is deceived For while the Pelagians stood out impudently against National Councels some of them defended Nestorius which gave occasion to the first Ephesine Councel to Excommunicate and depose them And yet this will not serve your turn for this place For S. Augustine was then dead and therefore could not mean the Sentence of that Councel in this place Secondly if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenical Synod Plena Authoritas Ecclesiae the full Authority of the Church there mentioned doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenical Councel but for some National as this was condemned in a National Councel And then the full Authority of the Church here is no more then the full Authority of the Church of Africk And I hope that Authority doth not make all Points defined by it to be fundamental You will say Yes if that Councel be confirmed by the Pope And then I must ever wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authority of the Church and not bestow one word upon the Pope by whose Authority only that Councel as all other have their fulness of Authority in your Judgment An inexpiable Omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true Num. 14 But here A. C. steps in again to help the Jesuite and he tells us over and over again That all points made firm by full Authority of the Church are fundamental so firm he will have them and therefore fundamental But I must tell him That first 't is one thing in Nature and Religion too to be firm and another thing to be fundamental These two are not Convertible 'T is true that every thing that is fundamental is firm But it doth not follow that every thing that is firm is fundamental For many a Superstructure is exceeding firm being fast and close joyned to a sure foundation which yet no man will grant is fundamental Besides whatsoever is fundamental in the Faith is fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Desinition is the Churches foundation And so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in absolute and perfect Being before so much as her foundation is laid Now this is so absurd for any man of Learning to say that by and by after A. C. is content to affirm not only that the prima Credibilia the Articles of Faith but all which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church under Christ the Prime Foundation And here he 's out again For first all which pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith is not by and by fundamental in the Faith to all men And secondly the whole Discourse here is concerning Faith as it is taken Objectivè for the Object of Faith and thing to be believed but that Faith by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts is taken Subjective for the Habit and Act of Faith Now to confound both these in one period of speech can have no other aim then to confound the Reader But to come closer both to the Jesuite and his Defender A. C. If all Points made firm by full Authority of the Church be fundamental then they must grant that every thing determined by the Councel of Trent is fundamental in the Faith For with them 't is firm and Catholike which that
Follow me and I will make you fishers of men is as firm a truth as that which he delivered to his Disciples That he must die and rise again the third day For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation out of the mouth of our Saviour and both are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which receives the whole Gospel of S. Matthew to be Canonical and Infallible Scripture And yet both these Propositions of Christ are not alike fundamental in the Faith For I dare say No man shall be saved in the ordinary way of Salvation that believes not the Death and the Resurrection of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say that no man shall be saved into whose capacity it never came that Christ made S. Peter and Andrew fishers of men And yet should he say it nay should he shew it sub annulo Piscatoris no man will believe it that hath not made shipwrack of his common Notions Now if it be thus between Proposition and Proposition issuing out of Christ's own Mouth I hope it may well be so also between even Just and True Determinations of the Church that supposing them alike true and firm yet they shall not be alike fundamental to all mens belief F. Secondly I required to know what Points the Bishop would account Fundamental He said all the Points of the Creed were such B. § 11 Num. 1 Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Divine is governed about the Faith since your own Councel of Trent Decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that profess Christ do necessarily agree fundamentum firmum unicum not the firm alone but the only foundation since it is Excommunication ipso jure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole Body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was believ'd even before the coming of Christ though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessary for all mens Salvation are in the Creed and the Decalogue what reason can you have to except And yet for all this every thing fundamental is not of a like nearness to the foundation nor of equal primeness in the Faith And my granting the Creed to be fundamental doth not deny but that there are quaedam prima Credibilia certain prime Principles of Faith in the bosom whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up One of which since Christ is that of S. John Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the coming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must believe that God is and that be is a rewarder of them that seek him Num. 2 Here A. C. tells you That either I must mean that those points are only fundamental which are expressed in the Creed or those also which are infolded If I say those only which are expressed then saith he to believe the Scriptures is not fundamental because 't is not expressed If I say those which are infolded in the Articles then some unwritten Church-Traditions may be accounted fundamental The truth is I said and say still that all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are fundamental And therein I say no more then some of your best Learned have said before me But I never either said or meant that they only are fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum the only Foundation is the Councel of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Prime Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed And this agrees as before I told the Jesuite with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from that Proposition in terminis So here the very foundation of A. C ' Dilemma falls off For I say not That only the Points of the Creed are fundamental whether expressed or not expressed That all of them are that I say And yet though the foundation of his Dilemma be fallen away I will take the boldness to tell A. C. That if I had said that those Articles only which are expressed in the Creed are fundamental it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture upon which the Creed it self in every Point is grounded For nothing is supposed to shut out its own foundation And if I should now say that some Articles are fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were fundamental Some Traditions I deny not true and firm and of great both Authority and Use in the Church as being Apostolical but yet not fundamental in the Faith And it would be a mighty large fold which should lap up Traditions within the Creed As for that Tradition That the Books of holy Scriptures are Divine and Infallible in every part I will handle that when I come to the proper place for it F. I asked how then it happened as M. Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. § 12 Num. 1 The English Church never made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plain they bear thâ—â—â— meaning before them She was content to put that Artiâ—â—â— among those to which she requires Subscription not as doubting of the sense but to prevent the Cavils of some who had been too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Cross or but an Exposition of it Num. 2 And surely for my part I think the Church of England is better resolved of the right sense of this Article then the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meer Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is every where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England never doubted it and S. Augustine proves it Num. 3 And yet again you are different for the sense For you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his Death did go down into Hell really and was present there or vertually and by effects only For
England are grounded upon Scripture we are content to be judged by the joynt and constant Belief of the Fathers which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ when the Church was at the best and by the Councels held within those times and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine Therefore we desire not to be Judges in our own Cause And if any whom A. C. calls a Novellist can truly say and maintain this he will quickly prove himself no Novellist And for the Negative Articles they refute where the thing affirmed by you is either not affirmed in Scripture or not directly to be concluded out of it Upon this Negative ground A. C. infers again That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it In which case he professes he would gladly know what can be answered to defend this doctrine to be a Point of Faith necessary for the salvation of Infants And in Conclusion professes he cannot easily guess what answer can be made unless we will acknowledge Authority of church-Church-Tradition necessary in this Case Num. 3 And truly since A. C. is so desirous of an Answer I will give it freely And first in the General I am no way satisfied with A. C. his Addition not expresly at least not evidently what means he If he speak of the Letter of the Scripture then whatsoever is expresly is evidently in the Scripture and so his Addition is vain If he speak of the Meaning of the Scripture then his Addition is cunning For many things are Expresly in Scripture which yet in their Meaning are not evidently there And what e're he mean my words are That our Negative Articles refute that which is not affirmed in Scripture without any Addition of Expresly or Evidently And he should have taken my words as I used them I lke nor Change nor Addition nor am I bound to either of A. C's making And I am as little satisfied with his next Addition nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it For are there not many things in Good Logick concluded directly which yet are not concluded Demonstratively Surely there are For to be directly or indirectly concluded flows from the Mood or Form of the Syllogism To be demonstratively concluded flows from the Matter or Nature of the Propositions If the Propositions be Prime and necessary Truths the Syllogism is demonstrative and scientifical because the Propositions are such If the Propositions be probable only though the Syllogism be made in the clearest Mood yet is the Conclusion no more The Inference or Consequence indeed is clear and necessary but the Consequent is but probable or topical as the Propositions were Now my words were only for a Direct Conclusion and no more though in this case I might give A. C. his Caution For Scripture here is the thing spoken of And Scripture being a Principle and every Text of Scripture confessedly a Principle among all Christians whereof no man desires any farther proof I would fain know why that which is plainly and apparently that is by direct Consequence proved out of Scripture is not Demonstratively or Scientifically proved If at least he think there can be any Demonstration in Divinity and if there can be none why did he add Demonstratively Num. 4 Next in particular I answer to the Instance which A. C. makes concerning the Baptism of Infants That it may be concluded directly and let A. C. judge whether not demonstratively out of Scripture both that Infants ought to be baptized and that Baptism is necessary to their Salvation And first that Baptism is necessary to the Salvation of Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without binding God to the use and means of that Sacrament to which he hath bound us is express in S. John 3. Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God So no Baptism no Entrance Nor can Infants creep in any other ordinary way And this is the received Opinion of all the Ancient Church of Christ. And secondly That Infants ought to be baptized is first plain by Evident and Direct Consequence out of Scripture For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church but by Baptism and this appear in Scripture as it doth then out of all Doubt the Consequence is most evident out of that Scripture That Infants are to be baptized that their Salvation may be certain For they which cannot help themselves must not be left only to Extraordinary Helps of which we have no assurance and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture while we in the mean time neglect the ordinary way and means commanded by Christ Secondly 't is very near an Expression in Scripture it self For when S. Peter had ended that great Sermon of his Act. 2. he applies two comforts unto them Verse 38. Amend your lives and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost And then Verse 39. he infers For the promise is made to you and to your children The Promise What Promise What Why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost By what means Why by Baptism For 't is expresly Be baptized and ye shall receive And as expresly This promise is made to you and to your Children And therefore A. C. may finde it if he will That the Baptism of Infants may be directly concluded out of Scripture For some of his own Party Ferus and Salmeron could both find it there And so if it will do him any pleasure he hath my Answer which he saith he would be glad to know Num. 5 'T is true Bellarmine presses a main place out of S. Augustine and he urges it hard S. Augustine's words are The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing Infants is by no means to be contemned or thought superfluous nor yet at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolâ—cal Tradition The place is truly cited but seems a great deal stronger than indeed it is For first 't is not denied That this is an Apostolical Tradition and therefore to be believed But secondly not therefore only Nor doth S. Augustine say so nor doth Bellarmine press it that way The truth is it would have been somewhat difficult to find the Collection out of Scripture only for the Baptism of Infants since they do not actually believe And therefore S. Augustine is at nec credenda nisi that this Custom of the Church had not been to be believed had it not been an Apostolical Tradition But the Tradition being Apostolical led on the Church easily to see the necessary Deduction out of Scripture And this is not the least use of Tradition to lead the Church into the true meaning of those things which are found in Scripture though
ordinarily have Tradition to prepare the mind of a man to receive it And in the next place where he speaks so sensibly That Scripture cannot bear witness to it self nor one part of it to another that is grounded upon Nature which admits no created thing to be witness to it self and is acknowledged by our Saviour If I bear witness to my self my witness is not true that is is not of force to be reasonably accepted for Truth But then it is more than manifest that Hooker delivers his Demonstration of Scripture alone For if Scripture hath another proof nay many other proofs to usher it and lead it in then no Question it can both prove and approve it self His words are So that unless besides Scripture there be c. Besides Scripture therefore he excludes not Scripture though he call for another Proof to lead it in and help in assurance namely Tradition which no man that hath his brains about him denies In the two other Places Brierly falsifies shamefully for folding up all that Hooker says in these words This other means to assure us besides Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church he wrinkles that Worthy Author desperately and shrinks up his meaning For in the former place abused by Brierly no man can set a better state of the Question between Scripture and Tradition than Hooker doth His words are these The Scripture is the ground of our Belief The Authority of man that is the Name he gives to Tradition is the Koy which opens the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture I ask now When a man is entred and hath viewed a house and upon viewing likes it and upon liking resolves unchangeably to dwell there doth he set up his Resolution upon the Key that let him in No sure but upon the Goodness and Commodiousness which he sees in the House And this is all the difference that I know between us in this Point In which do you grant as you ought to do that we resolve our Faith into Scripture as the Ground and we will never deny that Tradition is the Key that lets us in In the latter place Hooker is as plain as constant to himself and Truth His words are The first outward Motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church c. But afterwards the more we bestow our Labour in reading or learning the Mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther Reason Here then again in his Judgment Tradition is the first Inducement but the farther Reason and Ground is the Scripture And Resolution of Faith ever settles upon the Farthest Reason it can not upon the First Inducement So that the State of this Question is firm and yet plain enough to him that will not shut his eyes Num. 26 Now here after a long silence A. C. thrusts himself in again and tells me That if I would consider the Tradition of the Church not only as it is the Tradition of a Company of Fallible men in which sense the Authority of it as himself confesses is but Humane and Fallible c. But as the Tradition of a Company of men assisted by Christ and his Holy Spirit in that sense I might easily sinde it more than an Introduction indeed as much as would amount to an Infallible Motive Well I have considered The Tradition of the present Church both these ways And I find that A. C. confesses That in the first sense the Tradition of the Church is meer humane Authority and no more And therefore in this sense it may serve for an Introduction to this Belief but no more And in the second sense as it is not the Tradition of a Company of men only but of men assisted by Christ and His Spirit In this second sense I cannot finde that the Tradition of the present Church is of Divine and Infallible Authority till A. C. can prove That this Company of men the Roman Prelates and their Clergy he means are so fully so clearly so permanently assisted by Christ and his Spirit as may reach to Infallibility to a Divine Infallibility in this or any other Principle which they teach For every Assistance of Christ and the Blessed Spirit is not enough to make the Authority of any Company of men Divine and infallible but such and so great an Assistance only as is purposely given to that effect Such an Assistance the Prophets under the Old Testament and the Apostles under the New had but neither the High-Priest with his Clergy in the Old nor any Company of Prelates or Priests in the New since the Apostles ever had it And therefore though at the intreaty of A. C. I have considered this very well yet I cannot no not in this Assisted sense think the Tradition of the present Church Divine and Infallible or such Company of men to be worthy of Divine and infallible Credit and sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Which I am sorry A. C. should affirm so boldly as he doth What That Company of men the Roman Bishop and his Clergy of Divine and Infallible Credit and sufficient to breed in us Divine and Infallible Faith Good God! Whither will these men go Surely they are wise in their generation but that makes them never a whit the more the Children of Light S. Luk. 16. And could they put this home upon the world as they are gone far in it what might they not effect How might they and would they then Lord it over the Faith of Christendom contrary to S. Peters Rule whose Successors certainly in this they are not But I pray if this Company of men be infallibly assisted whence is it that this very Company have erred so dangerously as they have not only in some other things but even in this Particular by equaling the Tradition of the present Church to the written Word of God Which is a Doctrine unknown to the Primitive Church and which frets upon the very Foundation it self by justling with it So belike he that hath but half an indifferent eye may see this Assisted Company have erred and yet we must wink in obedience and think them Infallible Num. 27 But A. C. would have me consider again That it is as easie to take the Tradition of the present Church in the two fore-named senses as the present Scriptures printed and approved by men of this Age. For in the first sense The very Scriptures saith he considered as printed and approved by men of this Age can be no more than of Humane Credit But in the second sense as printed and approved by men assisted by God's Spirit for true Copies of that which was first written then we may give Infallible Credit to them Well I
there is by Historical and acquired Faith And if Consent of Humane Story can assure me this why should not Consent of Church-story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Jews Enemies to Christ they bear witness to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations give in evidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other Enemies of Christianity can give such a Worthy and Consenting Testimony for any Authority upon which they rely or almost for any Principle which they have as the Scripture hath gained to it self And as is the Testimony which it receives above all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Divine Authority in a Word written or Unwritten A great assurance and it is Infallible too Only then we must distinguish Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Object of Belief when it is true and remains so For Truth quà talis as it is Truth cannot deceive Secondly a thing is said to be Infallible when it is not only true and remains so actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and upon such ground as that no Degree of falshood at any time in any respect can fall upon it Certain it is that by Humane Authority Consent and Proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith cui non subest falsum under which nor Error nor falshood is But he cannot be assured insallibly by Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falshood can come but by a Divine Testimony This Testimony is absolute in Scripture it self delivered by the Apostles for the Word of God and so sealed to our Souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motive is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Divine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolve our Faith but only as is before expressed Num. 2 And now to come close to the Particular The time was before this miserable Rent in the Church of Christ which I think no true Christian can look upon but with a bleeding heart that you and We were all of One Belief That belief was tainted in tract and corruption of times very deeply A Division was made yet so that both Parts held the Creed and other Common Principles of Belief Of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God For our belief of all things contained in it depends upon it Since this Division there hath been nothing done by us to discredit this Principle Nay We have given it all honour and ascribed unto it more sufficiencie even to the containing of all things necessary to salvation with Satis superque enough and more than enough which your selves have not done do not And for begetting and setling a Belief of this Principle we go the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you Because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing Motive to embrace this Principle only we cannot go so far in this way as you to make the present Tradition always an Infallible Word of God unwritten For this is to go so far in till you be out of the way For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church it hath an end not only to receive us in but another after to let us out into more open and richer ground And we go a better way than you Because after we are moved and prepared and induced by Tradition we resolve our Faith into that Written Word and God delivering it in which we find materially though not in Terms the very Tradition that led us thither And so we are sure by Divine Authority that we are in the way because at the end we find the way proved And do what can be done you can never settle the Faith of man about this great Principle till you rise to greater assurance than the Present Church alone can give And therefore once again to that known place of S. Augustine The words of the Father are Nisi commoveret Unless the Authority of the Church moved me but not alone but with other Motives else it were not commovere to move together And the other Motives are Resolvers though this be Leader Now since we go the same way with you so far as you go right and a better way than you where you go wrong we need not admit any other Word of God than we do And this ought to remain as a Presupposed Principle among all Christians and not so much as come into this Question about the sufficiencie of Scripture between you and us But you say that F. From this the Lady called us and desiring to hear Whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church The B. granted That it was B. § 20 Num. 1 One occasion which moved Tertullian to write his Book d◠Praescript adversus Haereticos was That he saw little or no Profit come by Disputations Sure the Ground was the same then and now It was not to deny that Disputation is an Opening of the Understanding a sifting out of Truth it was not to affirm that any such Disquisition is in and of it self unprofitable If it had S. Stephen would not have disputed with the Cyrenians nor S. Paul with the Grecians first and then with the Jews and all Comers No sure it was some Abuse in the Disputants that frustrated the good of the Disputation And one Abuse in the Disputants is a Resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth And so I find it here For as it is true that this Question was asked so it is altogether false that it was asked in this form or so answered There is a great deal of Difference especially as Romanists handle the Question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church which is the word you use but no man else that I know I am sure not I. Num. 2 For The Church may import in our Language The only true Church and perhaps as some of you seem to make it the Root and the Ground of the Catholike And this I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more than that it is a member of the Whole And this I never did nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right as you impose upon me For Ens and Verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is
C's words are very considerable For he charges the Protestants to be the Authors of the Schism for obstinate holding and teaching contrary Opinions To what I pray Why to the Roman Faith To the Roman Faith It was wont to be the Christian Faith to which contrary Opinions were so dangerous to the Maintainers But all 's Roman now with A. C. and the Jesuite And then to countenance the Business S. Bernard and S. Augustine are brought in whereas neither of them speak of the Roman and S. Bernard perhaps neither of the Catholike nor the Roman but of a Particular Church or Congregation Or if he speak of the Catholike of the Roman certainly he doth not His words are Quae major superbia c. What greater pride than that one man should prefer his judgment before the whole Congregation of all the Christian Churches in the world So A. C. out of Saint Bernard But Saint Bernard not so For these last words of all the Christian Churches in the world are not in Saint Bernard And whether Toti Congregationi imply more in that Place than a Particular Church is not very manifest Nay I think 't is plain that he speaks both of and to that particular Congregation to which he was then preaching And I believe A. C. will not easily find where tota Congregatio the whole Congregation is used in Saint Bernard or any other of the Fathers for the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And howsoever the meaning of S. Bernard be 't is one thing for a private man Judicium suum praeferre to prefer and so follow his private Judgment before the Whole Congregation which is indeed Lepra proprii Consilii as S. Bernard there calls it the proud Leprosie of the Private Spirit And quite another thing for an Intelligent man and in some things unsatisfied modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholike Church And much more may a whole National Church nay the whole Body of the Protestants do it And for S. Augustine the Place alledged out of him is a known Place And he speaks indeed of the Whole Catholike Church And he says and he says it truly 'T is a part of most insolent madness for any Man to dispute whether that be to be done which is usually done in and through the whole Catholike Church of Christ Where first here 's not a word of the Roman Church but of that which is tota per Orbem all over the World Catholike which Rome never yet was Secondly A. C. applies this to the Roman Faith whereas S. Augustine speaks there expresly of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church and particularly about the Manner of Offering upon Maundy Thursday whether it be in the Morning or after Supper or both Thirdly 't is manifest by the words themselves that S. Augustine speaks of no Matter of Faith there Roman nor Catholike For Frequentat and Faciendum are for Things done and to be done not for Things believed or to be believed So here 's not One Word for the Roman Faith in either of these Places And after this I hope you will the less wonder at A. C's Boldness Lastly a right sober man may without the least Touch of Insolencie or Madness dispute a Business of Religion with the Roman either Church or Prelate as all men know Irenaeus did with Victor so it be with Modesty and for the finding out or Confirming of Truth free from Vanity and purposed Opposition against even a Particular Church But in any other way to dispute the Whole Catholike Church is just that which S. Augustine calls it Insolent Madness Num. 5 But now were it so that the Church of Rome were Orthodox in all things yet the Faith by the Jesuite's leave is not simply to be called the Roman but the Christian and the Catholike Faith And yet A. C. will not understand this but Roman and Catholike whether Church or Faith must be one and the same with him and therefore infers That there can be no just Cause to make a Schism or Division from the whole Church For the whole Church cannot universally erre in Doctrine of Faith That the whole Church cannot universally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true and 't is granted by drivers Protestants so you will but understand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamental Doctrines And therefore 't is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schism from the whole Church But here 's the Jesuite's Cunning. The whole Church with him is the Roman and those parts of Christendom which subject themselves to the Roman Bishop All other parts of Christendom are in Heresie and Schism and what A. C. pleases Nay soft For another Church may separate from Rome if Rome will separate from Christ. And so far as it separates from Him and the Faith so far may another Church fever from it And this is all that the Learned Protestants do or can say And I am sure all that ever the Church of England hath either said or done And that the whole Church cannot erre in Doctrines absolutely Fundamental and Necessary to all mens Salvation besides the Authority of thoso Protestants most of them being of prime Rank seems to me to be clear by the Promise of Christ S. Matth. 16. That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Whereas most certain it is that the Gates of Hell prevail very far against it if the Whole Militant Church universally taken can Erre from or in the Foundation But then this Power of not Eâ—ring is not to be conceived as if it were in the Church primò per se Originally or by any power it hath of it self For the Church is constituted of Men and Humanum est errare all men can erre But this Power is in it partly by the vertue of this Promise of Christ and partly by the Matter which it teacheth which is the unerring Word of God so plainly and manifestly delivered to her as that it is not possible she should universally fall from it or teach against it in things absolutely necessary to Salvation Besides it would be well weighed whether to believe or teach otherwise will not impeach the Article of the Creed concerning the Holy Catholike Church which we profess we believe For the Holy Catholike Church there spoken of contains not only the whole Militant Church on earth but the whole Triumphant also in Heaven For so S. Augustine hath long since taught me Now if the whole Catholike Church in this large extent be Holy then certainly the whole Militant Church is Holy as well as the Triumphant though in a far lower degree in as much as all Sanctification all Holiness is imperfect in this life as well in Churches as in Men Holy then the whole Militant Church is For that which the Apostle speaks of Abraham is true of the Church which is a Body Collective made
that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or Doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a General Councel which shall be lawfully called and fairly and freely held with indifferencie to all parties And that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as Private Mens Num. 2 And here after some lowd Cry against the Pride and Insolent madness of the Protestants A. C. adds That the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church And that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may Accuse Witness Judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children How far forth Rome is a Prince over the whole Church or a Mother of it will come to be shewed at after In the mean time though I cannot grant her to be either yet let 's suppose her to be both that A. C's Argument may have all the strength it can have Nor shall it force me as plausible as it seems to weaken the just power of Princes over their Subjects or of Mothers over their Children to avoid the shock of this Argument For though A. C. may tell us 't is not absurd in some Cases yet I would fain have him name any one Moderate Prince that ever thought it just or took it upon him to be Accuser and Witness and Judge in any Cause of moment against his Subjects but that the Law had Liberty to Judge between them For the great Philosopher tells us That the Chief Magistrate is Custos juris the Guardian and keeper of the Law and if of the Law then both of that equity and equality which is due unto them that are under him And even Tiberius himself in the Cause of Silanus when Dolabella would have flatter'd him into more power than in wisdom he thought fit then to take to himself he put him off thus No the Laws grow less where such Power enlarges Nor is absolute Power to be used where there may be an orderly proceeding by Law And for Parents 't is true when Children are young they may chastise them without other Accuser or Witness than themselves and yet the children are to give them reverence And 't is presumed that natural affection will prevail so far with them that they will not punish them too much For all experience tells us almost to the loss of Education they punish them too little even when there is cause Yet when Children are grown up and come to some full use of their own Reason the Apostles Rule is Colos. 3. Parents provoke not your Children And if the Apostle prevail not with froward Parents there 's a Magistrate and a Law to relieve even a son against unnatural Parents as it was in the Case of T. Manlius against his over-Imperious Father And an express Law there was among the Jews Deut. 21. when Children were grown up and fell into great extremities that the Parents should then bring them to the Magistrate and not be too busie in such cases with their own Power So suppose Rome be a Prince yet her Subjects must be tryed by Gods Law the Scripture and suppose her a Mother yet there is or ought to be Remedy against her for her Children that are grown up if she forget all good Nature and turn Stepdame to them Num. 3 Well the Reason why the Jesuite asked the Question Quo Judice Who should be Judge He says was this Because there 's no equity in it that the Protestants should be Judges in their own Cause But now upon more Deliberation A. C. tells us as if he knew the Jesuites mind as well as himself as sure I think he doth That the Jesuite directed this Question chiefly against that speech of mine That there were Errors in Doctrine of Faith and that in the General Church as the Jesuite understood my meaning The Jesuite here took my meaning right For I confess I said there were Errors in Doctrine and dangerous ones too in the Church of Rome I said likewise that when the General Church could not or would not Reform such it was lawful for Particular Churches to Reform themselves But then I added That the General Church not universally taken but in these Western parts fell into those Errors being swayed in these later Ages by the predominant Power of the Church of Rome under whose Government it was for the most part forced And all men of understanding know how oft and how easily an Over-potent Member carries the whole with it in any Body Natural Politick or Ecclesiastical Num. 4 Yea but A. C. tells us That never any Competent Judge did so censure the Church And indeed that no Power on Earth or in Hell it self can so far prevail against the General Church as to make it Erre generally in any one Point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be a Matter of Faith which is contrary to Divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches And for proof of this he cites S. Mat. 16. and 28. S. Luk. 22. S. John 14. and 16. In this troublesome and quarrelling Age I am most unwilling to meddle with the Erring of the Church in general The Church of England is content to pass that over And though She tells us That the Church of Rome hath Erred even in matters of Faith yet of the Erring of the Church in general She is modestly silent But since A. C. will needs have it That the whole Church did never generally Erre in any one Point of Faith he should do well to Distinguish before he be so peremptory For if he mean no more than that the whole Universal Church of Christ cannot universally Erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to all mens salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most Lear ned Protestants grant it But if he mean that the whole Church cannot Erre in any one Point of Divine Truth in general which though by sundry Consequences deduced from the Principles is yet made a Point of Faith and may prove dangerous to the Salvation of some which believe it and practise after it as his words seem to import especially if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as Bellarm. says She may and yet not Erre Then perhaps it may be said and without any wrong to the Catholike Church that the Whole Militant Church hath
erred in such a Point of Divine Truth and of Faith Nay A. C. confesses expresly in his very next words That the Whole Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths which afterwards it may learn by study of Scripture and otherwise So then in A. C's judgment the Whole Militant Church may at some time not know all Divine Truths Now that which knows not all must be ignorant of some and that which is ignorant of some may possibly erre in one Point or other The rather because he confesses the knowledge of it must be got by Learning and Learners may mistake and erre especially where the Lesson is Divine Truth out of Scripture out of Difficult Scripture For were it of plain and easie Scripture that he speaks the Whole Church could not at any time be without the knowledge of it And for ought I yet see the Whole Church Militant hath no greater warrant against Not erring in than against Not knowing of the Points of Divine Truth For in 8. John 16. There is as large a Promise to the Church of knowing all Points of Divine Truth as A. C. or any Jesuite can produce for Her Not erring in any And if She may be ignorant or mistaken in learning of any Point of Divine Truth Doubtless in that state of Ignorance she may both Erre and teach her Error yea and teach that to be Divine Truth which is not Nay perhaps teach that as a Matter of Divine Truth which is contrary to Divine Truth Always provided it be not in any Point simply Fundamental of which the Whole Catholike Church cannot be Ignorant and in which it cannot Erre as hath before been proved Num. 5 As for the Places of Scripture which A. C. cites to prove that the Whole Church cannot Erre Generally in any one Point of Divine Truth be it Fundamental or not they are known Places all of them and are alledged by A. C. three several times in this short Tract and to three several purposes Here to prove That the Universal Church cannot Erre Before this to prove that the Tradition of the present Church cannot Erre After this to prove that the Pope cannot Erre He should have done well to have added these Places a fourth time to prove that General Councels cannot Erre For so doth both Stapleton and Bellarmine Sure A. C. and his fellows are hard driven when they must fly to the same Places for such different purposes For A Pope may Erre where a Councel doth not And a General Councel may Erre where the Catholike Church cannot And therefore it is not likely that these places should serve alike for all The first Place is Saint Matthew 16. There Christ told Saint Peter and we believe it most assuredly That Hell-Gates shall never be able to prevail against his church But that is That they shall not prevail to make the Church Catholike Apostatize and fall quite away from Christ or Erre in absolute Fundamentals which amounts to as much But the Promise reaches not to this that the Church shall never Erre no not in the lightest matters of Farth For it will not follow Hell-Gates shall not prevail against the Church Therefore Hellish Devils shall not tempt or assault and batter it And thus Saint Augustine understood the place It may fight yea and be wounded too but it cannot be wholly overcome And Bellarmine himself applies it to prove That the Visible Church of Christ cannot deficere Erre so as quite to fall away Therefore in his judgment this is a true and a safe sense of this Text of Scripture But as for not Erring at all in any Point of Divine Truth and so making the Church absolutely Infallible that 's neither a true nor a safe sense of this Scripture And 't is very remarkable that whereas this Text hath been so much beaten upon by Writers of all sorts there is no one Father of the Church for twelve hundred years after Christ the Counterfeit or Partial Decretals of some Popes excepted that ever concluded the Infallibility of the Church out of this Place but her Non deficiencie that hath been and is justly deduced hence And here I challenge A. C. and all that party to shew the contrary if they can The next Place of Scripture is Saint Matthew 28. The Promise of Christ that he will be with them to the end of the World But this in the general voyce of the Fathers of the Church is a promise of Assistance and Protection not of an Infallibility of the Church And Pope Leo himself enlarges this presence and providence of Christ to all those things which he committed to the execution of his Ministers But no word of Infallibility is to be found there And indeed since Christ according to his Prowise is present with his Ministers in all these things and that one and a Chief of these All is the preaching of his Word to the People It must follow That Christ should be present with all his Ministers that Preach his Word to make them Infallible which daily Experience tells us is not so The third Place urged by A. C. is S. Luke 22. Where the Prayer of Christ will effect no more than his Promise hath performed neither of them implying an Infallibility for or in the Church against all Errors whatsoever And this almost all his own side confess is spoken either of S. Peter's person only or of him and his Successors both Of the Church it is not spoken and therefore cannot prove an unerring Power in it For how can that place prove the Church cannot Erre which speaks not at all of the Church And 't is observable too that when the Divines of Paris expounded this Place that Christ here prayed for S. Peter as he represented the Whole Catholike Church and obtained for it that the Faith of the Catholike Church nunquam desiceret should never so erre as quite to fall away Bellarmine is so stiff for the Pope that he says expresly This Exposition of the Parisians is false and that this Text cannot be meant of the Catholike Church Not be meant of it Then certainly it ought not to be alledged as Proof of it as here it is by A. C. The fourth Place named by A. C. is S. John 14. And the consequent Place to it S. John 16. These Places contain another Promise of Christ concerning the coming of the Holy Ghost Thus That the Comforter shall abide with them for ever That this Comforter is the Spirit of Truth And That this Spirit of Truth will lead them into all Truth Now this Promise as it is applied to the Church consisting of all Believers which are and have been since Christ appeared in the Flesh including the Apostles is absolute and without any Restriction For the Holy Ghost did lead them into all Truth so that no Error was to be found in that Church
we may be the more certain that you think concerning the Faith as We do Ut ego etiam persuasus sim inhaesitantèr That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to Command me Now I would fain know if the Pope at that time were or did think himself Infallble how he should possibly be more certainly perswaded of any Truth belonging to the Faith by Athanasius his concurring in Judgement with him For nothing can make Infallibility more certain than it is At least not the concurring judgement of that is Fallible as S. Athanasius was Beside the Pope Complemented exceeding low that would submit his unerring Judgement to be commanded by Athanasius who he well knew could Erre Again in the Case of Easter which made too great a noise in the Church of old Very many men called for S. Ambrose his Judgement in that Point even after the Definition of the Church of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome And this I presume they would not have done had they then conceived either the Pope or his Church infallible And thus it continued down to Lyra's time For he says expresly That many Popes as well as other Inferiours have not onely erred but even quite Apostatized from the Faith And yet now nothing but Infallibility will serve their turns And sometimes they have not onely taken upon them to be Infallible in Cathedrâ in their Chair of Decision but also to Prophesie Infallibly out of the Scripture But Prophetical Scripture such as the Revelation is was too dangerous for men to meddle with which would be careful of their Credit in not Erring For it fell out in the time of Innocent the third and Honorius the the third as Aventine tells us That the then Popes assured the world that Destruction was at hand to Saracens Turks and Mahumetans which the Event shewed were notorious untruths And 't is remarkable which happened anno 1179. For then in a Councel held at Rome Pope Alexander the third Condemned Peter Lombard of Hereste And he lay under that Damnation for thirty and six years till Innocent the third restored him and condemned his Accusers Now Peter Lombard was then condemned for something which he had written about the humane Nature of our Saviour Christ. S◠here was a great Mysterie of the Faith in hand something about the Incarnation And the Pope was in Cathedrâ and that in a Councel of three hundred Archbishops and Bishops And in this Councel he condemned Peter Lombard and in him his Opinion about the Incarnation And therefore of necessity either Pope Alexander erred and that in Cathedrâ as Pope in Condemning him or Pope Innocentius in restoring him The truth is Pope Alexander had more of Alexander the Great than of S. Peter in him And being accustomed to Warlike Employments he understood not that which Peter Lombard had written about this Mystery And so He and his Learned Assistants condemned him unjustly Num. 8 And whereas you profess after That you hold nothing against your Conscience I must ever wonder much how that can be true since you hold this of the Pope's Infallibility especially as being Prophetical in the Conclusion If this be true why do you not lay all your strength together all of your whole Society and make this one Proposition evident For all Controversies about matters of Faith are ended and without any great trouble to the Christian World if you can but make this one Proposition good That the Pope is an Infallible Judge Till then this shame will follow you infallibly and eternally That you should make the Pope a meer man Principium Fidei a Principle or Author of Faith and make the mouth of him whom you call Christs Vicar sole Judge both of Christ's Word be it never so manifest and of his Church be she never so Learned and careful of his Truth And for Conclusion of this Point I would fain know since this had been so plain so easie a way either to prevent all Divisions about the Faith or to end all Controversies did they arise why this brief but most necessary Proposition The Bishop of Rome cannot erre in his Judicial Determinations concerning the Faith is not to be found either in letter or sense in any Scripture in any Councel or in any Father of the Church for the full space of a thousand years and more after Christ For had this Proposition been true and then received in the Church how weak were all the Primitive Fathers to prescribe so many Rules and Cautions for avoidance of Heresie as Tertullian and Vincentius Lirinensis and others do and to endure such hard Conflicts as they did and with so many various Haereticks To see Christendom so rent and torn by some distempered Councels as that of Ariminum the second of Ephesus and others Nay to see the whole world almost become Arrian to the amazement of it self And yet all this time not so much as call in this Necessary Assistance of the Pope and let the world know That the Bishop of Rome was infallible that so in his Decision all Differences might cease For either the Fathers of the Church Greek as well as Latine knew this Proposition to be true That the Pope cannot Erre Judicially in matters belonging to the Faith or they knew it not If you say they knew it not you charge them with a base and unworthy Ignorance no ways like to over-cloud such and so many Learned men in a Matter so Necessary and of such infinite use to Christendom If you say they knew it and durst not deliver this Truth how can you charge them which durst die for Christ with such Cowardise towards his Church And if you say they knew it and with-held it from the Church you lay a most unjust Load upon those Charitable souls which loved Christ too well to imprison any Truth but likely to make or keep peace in his Church Catholike over the world But certainly as no Divine of Worth did then dream of any such Infallibility in Him so is it a meer Dream or worse of those Modern Divines who affirm it now And as S. Augustine sometimes spake of the Donatists and their absurd limiting the whole Christian Church to Africa onely so may I truely say of the Romanists confining all Christianity to the Romane Doctrine governed by the Pope's Infallibility I verily perswade my self That even the Jesuites themselves laugh at this And yet unless they say this which they cannot but blush while they say they have nothing at all to say But what 's this to us we envie no man If the Pope's Decision be infallible Legant Let them read it to us out of the Holy Scripture and we 'll believe it Num. 9 In the mean time take this with you That most certain it is That the Pope hath no Infallibility to attend his Cathedral Judgement in things belonging to the Faith For
Argument thus Neither the Church nor any Member of the Church can know that this Pope which now sits or any other that hath been or shall be is Infallible For he is not Infallible unless he be Pope and he is not Pope unless he be in Holy Orders And he cannot be so unless he have received those Holy Orders and that from one that had Power to Ordain And those Holy Orders in your Doctrine are a Sacrament And a Sacrament is not perfectly given if he that Administers it have not intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia an intention to do that which the Church doth by Sacraments Now who can possibly tell that the Bishop which gave the Pope Orders was first a man qualified to give them and secondly so devoutly set upon his Work that he had at the instant of giving them an Intention and purpose to do therein as the Church doth Surely none but that Bishop himself And his testimony of himself and his own Act such especially as if faulty he would be loth to Confess can neither give Knowledge nor Belief sufficient that the Pope according to this Canon is in Holy Orders So upon the Whole matter let the Romanists take which they will I will give them free Choice either this Canon of the Councel of Trent is false Divinity and there is no such Intention necessary to the Essence and Being of a Sacrament Or if it be true it is impossible for any man to know and for any advised man to Believe That the Pope is Infallible in his Judicial Sentences in things belonging to the Faith And so here again a General Councel at least such a one as that of Trent is can Erre or the Pope is not Infallible Num. 12 But this is an Argument ad Hominem good against your Party onely which maintain this Councel But the plain Truth is Both are Errours For neither is the Bishop of Rome Infallible in his Judicials about the Faith Nor is this Intention of either Bishop or Priest of Absolute Necessity to the Essence of a Sacrament so as to make void the gracious Institution of Christ in case by any Tentation the Priests Thoughts should wander from his Work at the instant of using the Essentials of a Sacrament or have in him an Actual Intention to scorn the Church And you may remember if you please that a Neapolitan Bishop then present at Trent disputed this Case very Learnedly and made it most evident that this Opinion cannot be defended but that it must open a way for any unworthy Priest to make infinite Nullities in Administration of the Sacraments And his Arguments were of such strength ut caeteros Theologos dederint in stuporem as amazed the other Divines which were present And concluded That no Internal Intention was required in the Minister of a Sacrament but that Intention which did appear Opere externo in the Work it self performed by him And that if he had unworthily any wandring thoughts nay more any contrary Intention within him yet it neither did nor could hinder the blessed effect of any Sacrament And most certain it is if this be not true besides all other Inconveniences which are many no man can secure himself upon any Doubt or trouble in his Conscience that he hath truly and really been made partaker of any Sacrament whatsoever No not of Baptism and so by Consequence be left in doubt whether he be a Christian or no even after he is Baptized Whereas 't is most impossible That Christ should so order his Sacraments and so leave them to his Church as that poor Believers in his Name by any unworthiness of any of his Priests should not be able to know whether they have received His Sacraments or not even while they have received them And yet for all this such great lovers of Truth and such careful Pastors over the Flock of Christ were these Trent-Fathers that they regarded none of this but went on in the usual track and made their Decree for the Internal Intention and purpose of the Priest and that the Sacrament was invalid without it Num. 13 Nay one Argument more there is and from your own Grounds too that makes it more than manifest That the Pope can erre not Personally onely but Judicially also and so teach false Doctrine to the Church which Bellarmine tells us No Pope hath done or can do And a Maxime it is with you That a General Councel can erre if it be confirmed by the Pope But if it be confirmed then it cannot erre Where first this is very improper Language For I hope no Councel is confirmed till it be finished And when 't is finished even before the Popes confirmation be put to it either it hath Erred or not Erred If it have Erred the Pope ought not to confirm it and if he do 't is a void act For no power can make Falshood Truth If it have not Erred then it was True before the Pope confirmed it So his Confirmation addes nothing but his own Assent Therefore his confirmation of a General Councel as you will needs call it is at the most Signum non Causa a Signe and that such as may fail but no Cause of the Councels not Erring But then secondly if a General Councel Confirmed as you would have it by the Pope have Erred and so can Erre then certainly the Pope can Erre Judicially For he never gives a more solemn Sentence for Truth than when he decrees any thing in a General Councel Therefore if he have Erred and can Erre there then certainly he can Erre in his Definitive Sentence about the Faith and is not Infallible Now that he hath Erred and therefore can Erre in a General Councel confirmed in which he takes upon him to teach all Christendom is most clear and evident For the Pope teaches in and by the Councel of Lateran Confirmed by Innocent the third Christ is present in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation And in and by the Councel of Constance the Administration of the Blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kinde notwithstanding Christs Institution of it in both kindes for all And in and by the Councel of Trent Invocation of Saints and Adoration of Images to the great Scandal of Christianity and as great hazard of the Weak Now that these Particulars among Many are Errours in Divinity and about the Faith is manifest both by Scripture the Judgement of the Primitive Church For Transubstantiation first That never was heard of in the Primitive Church nor till the Councel of Lateran nor can it be proved out of Scripture and taken properly cannot stand with the Grounds of Christian Religion As for Communion in one kinde Christs Institution is clear against that And not onely the Primitive Church but the Whole Church of Christ kept it so till within less than four hundred years For Aquinas confesses it was so in use even to
this the Protestants all agree And for the second the immediate Deductions they are not formally Fundamental for all men but for such as are able to make or understand them And for others 't is enough if they do not obstinately or Schismatically refuse them after they are once revealed Indeed you account many things Fundamental which were never so accounted in any sense by the Primitive Church such as are all the Decrees of General Councels which may be all true but can never be all Fundamental in the Faith For it is not in the power of the whole Church much less of a General Councel to make any thing Fundamental in the Faith that is not contained in the Letter or sense of that common Faith which was once given and but once for all to the Saints S. Jude 3. But if it be A. C's meaning to call for an Infallible Assurance of all such Points of Faith as are Decreed by General Councels Then I must be bold to tell him All those Decrees are not necessary to all mens salyation Neither do the Romanisis themselves agree in all such determined Points of Faith Be they determined by Councels or by Popes For Instance After those Books which we account Apocryphal were defined to be Canonical and an Anathema pronounced in the Case Sixtus Senensis makes scruple of some of them And after Pope Leo the tenth had defined the Pope to be above a General Councel yet many Roman Cathalikes defend the Contrary And so do all the Sorbâ—nists at this very day Therefore if these be Fundamental in the Faith the Romanists differ one from another in the Faith nay in the Fundamentals of the Faith And therefore cannot have Infallible Assurance of them Nor is there that Unity in the Faith amongst them which they so much and so often boast of For what Scripture is Canonical is a great point of Faith And I believe they will not now Confess That the Popes power over a General Councel is a small one And so let A. C. look to his own Infallible Assurance of Fundamentals in the Faith for ours God be thanked is well And since he is pleased to call for a particular Text of Scripture to prove all and every thing of this nature which is ridiculous in it self and unreasonable to demand as hath been shewed yet when he shall be pleased to bring forth but a particular known Tradition to prove all and every thing of this on their side it will then be perhaps time for him to call for and for us to give farther Answer about particular Texts of Scripture Num. 9 After all this Ouestioning A. C. infers That I had need seek out some other Infallible Rule and means by which I may know these things infallibly or else that I have no reason to be so confident as to adventure my soul that one may be saved living and dying in the Protestant faith How weak this Inference is will easily appear by that which I have already said to the premises And yet I have somewhat left to say to this Inference also And first I have lived and shall God willing die in the Faith of Christ as it was professed in the Ancient Primitive Church as it was professed in the present Church of England And for the Rule which governs me herein if I cannot be confident for my soul upon the Scripture and the Primitive Church expounding and declaring it I will be confident upon no other And secondly I have all the reason in the world to be confident upon this Rule for this can never deceive me Another that very other which A. C. proposes namely the Faith of the Roman Church may Therefore with A. C's leave I will venture my salvation upon the Rule aforesaid and not trouble my self to seek another of mans making to the forsaking and weakening of this which God hath given me For I know they Committed two Evils which forsook the Fountain of Living Waters to hew out to themselves Cisterns broken Cisterns that can hold no Water Jer. 2. For here 's the Evil of Desertion of that which was Right and the Evil of a bad Choice of that which is hew'd out with much pains and care and is after Useless and Unprofitable But then Thirdly I finde that a Romanist may make use of an Implicite Faith at his pleasure but a Protestant must know all these things Infallibly that 's A. C's word Know these things Why but is it not enough to believe them Now God forbid it should Else what shall become of Millions of poor Christians in the world which cannot know all these things much less know them Infallibly Well I would not have A. C. weaken the Belief of poor Christians in this fashion But for things that may be known as well as believed nor I nor any other shall need forsake the Scripture to seek another Rule to direct either our Conscience or our Confidence Num. 10 In the next place A. C. observes That the Jesuite was as confident for his part with this difference that he had sufficient reason of his Confidence but I had not for mine This is said with the Confidence of a Jesuite but as yet but said Therefore he goes on and tells us That the Jesuite had reason of his Confidence out of express Scriptures and Fathers and the Infallible Authority of the Church Now truly Express Scriptures with A. C's patience he hath not named one that is express nor can he And the few Scriptures which he hath alledged I have Answered and so have others As for Fathers he hath named very few and with what success I leave to the Readers judgment And for the Authority of the Catholike Church I hold it as Infallible as he and upon better Grounds but not so of a General Councel which he here means as appears after And for my part I must yet think and I doubt A. C. will not be able to disprove it that express Scripture and Fathers and the Authority of the Church will rather be found proofs to warrant my Confidence than his Yea but A. C. saith That I did not then taxe the Jesuite with any rashness It may be so Nor did he me So there we parted even Yea but he saith again that I acknowledge there is but one saving Faith and that the Lady might be saved in the Romane Faith which was all the Jesuite took upon his soul. Why but if this be all I will confess it again The first That there is but one faith I confess with S. Paul Ephes. 4. And the other that the Lady might be saved in the Romane Faith or Church I confess with that charity which S. Paul teacheth me Namely to leave all men especially the weaker both sex and sort which hold the Foundation to stand or fall to their own Master Rom. 14. And this is no mistaken charity As
at Credimus we believe eternal Punishment but he goes no farther than Arbitramur we think there is a Purging So with him it was Arbitrary And therefore sure no Matter of Faith then And again he saith That some Christians may be saved post poenas after some punishments indured but he neither tells us Where nor When. S. Basil names indeed Purgatory fire but he relates as uncertainly to that in 1 Cor. 3. as S. Ambrose doth As for Paulinus he speaks for Prayer for the dead but not a word of Purgatory And the Place in S. Gregory Nazianzen is far from a manifest Place For he speaks there of Baptism by fire which is no usual phrase to signifie Purgatory But yet say that here he doth there 's a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fortassis a peradventure in the words which Bellarmine cunningly leaves out And if it be a Peradventure ye shall then be Baptized with fire why then 't is at a Peradventure too that ye shall not Now such Casual stuff as this peradventure you shall and peradventure you shall not is no Expression for things which are valued to be de side and to be believed as Matters of Faith Bellarmine goes on with Lactantius but with no better success For he says indeed That some men perstringentur igne shall be sharply touched by fire But he speaks of such quorum peccata praevaluerunt whose sins have prevailed And they in Bellarmine's Doctrine are for Hell not Purgatory As for S. Hilary he will not come home neither 'T is true he speaks of a Fine too and one that must be indured but he tells us 't is a punishment expiandae à peccatis animae to purge the soul from sins Now this will not serve Bellarmine's turn For they of Rome teach That the sins are forgiven here and that the Temporal Punishment onely remains to be satisfied in Purgatory And what need is there then of purging of sins Lest there should not be Fathers enough he reckons in Boetius too But he though not long before a Convert yet was so well seen in this Point that he goes no farther than Puto I think that after death some souls are exercised purgatoriâ clementiâ with a Purgative Clemency But Puto I think 't is so is no expression for Matter of Faith The two pregnant Authorities which seem to come home are those of Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret But for Theodoret in Scholiis Graecis which is the Place Bellarmine quotes I can finde no such Thing And manifest it is Bellarmine himself took it but upon trust And for S. Gregory Nyssen 't is true some places in him seem plain But then they are made so doubtful by other Places in him that I dare not say simply and roundly what his Judgment was For he says Men must be purged from Perturbations and either by Prayers and Philosophy or the study of Wisdome or by the furnace of Purgatory-fire after this life And again That a man cannot be partaker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine nature unless the Purging-fire doth take away the stains that are in his Soul And again That after this life a Purgatory-fire takes away the blots and propensity to evil And I deny not divers other like places are in him But first this is quite another thing from the Roman Purgatory For S. Gregory tells us here that the Purgatory he means purges Perturbations and stains and blots and propensity to evil Whereas the Purgatory which Rome now teaches purges not sin but is only satisfactory by way of punishment for sins already forgiven but for which satisfaction was not made before their Death Secondly S. Gregory Nyssen himself seems not obscurely to relate to some other Fire For he says expresly That the soul is to be punished till the Vitiosity of it be consumed Purgatorio igne So the Translation renders it but in the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in a fire that sleeps not which for ought appears may be understood of a Fire that is eternal whereas the fire assigned to Purgatory shall cease Besides S. Gregory says plainly The Soul cannot suffer by sire but in the Body and the Body cannot be with it till the Resurrection Therefore he must needs speak of a fire after the Resurrection which must be either the Fire of the General Conflagration or Hell Purgatory he cannot mean Where according to the Romish Tenet the Soul suffers without the Body The truth is Divers of the Ancient especially Greeks which were a little too much acquainted with Plato's School philosophized and disputed upon this and some other Points with much Obscurity and as little Certainty So upon the whole matter in the fourth and fifth hundred year you see here 's none that constantly and perspicuously affirm it And as for S. Augustine he said and unsaid it and at the last left it doubtful which had it then been received as a Point of Faith he durst not have done Indeed then in S. Gregory the Great 's time in the beginning of the sixth Age Purgatory was grown to some perfection For S. Gregory himself is at Scio 't was but at Puto a little before I know that some shall be Expiated in Purgatory flames And therefore I will easily give Bellarmine all that follow For after this time Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffered to Cool again And in the after Ages more were frighted than led by proof into the Belief of it Num. 17 Now by this we see also That it could not be a Tradition For then we might have traced it by the smoke to the Apostles times Indeed Bellarmine would have it such a Tradition For he tells us out of S. Augustine That that is rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical Authority which the whole Church holds and hath ever held and yet is not Instituted by any Councel And he adds That Purgatory is such a Tradition so Constantly held in the whole Church Greek and Latine And that we do not finde any beginning of this Belief Where I shall take the boldness to Observe these three things First that the Doctrine of Purgatory was not held ever in the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And this appears by the proofs of Bellarmine himself produced and I have before examined For there 't is manifest that scarce two Fathers directly affirm the belief of Purgatory for full six hundred years after Christ. Therefore Purgatory is no Matter of Faith nor to be believed as descending from Apostolical Authority by S. Augustine's Rule Secondly that we can finde a beginning of this Doctrine and a Beginner too namely Origen And neither Bellarmine nor any other is able to shew any one Father of the Church that said it before him Therefore Purgatory is not to be believed as a Doctrine delivered
Church and in that sense which he would have it And his Reason is * Because sound Doctrine is indivisible from true and lawful Succession Where you shall see this great Clerk for so he was not able to stand to himself when he hath forsaken Truth For 't is not long after that he tells us That the People are led along and judge the Doctrine by the Pastors But when the Church comes to examine she judges the Pastors by their Doctrine And this he says is necessary Because a man may become of a Pastor a Wolf Now then let Stapleton take his choice For either a Pastor in this Succession cannot become a Wolf and then this Proposition's false Or else if he can then sound Doctrine is not inseparable from true and Legitimate Succession And then the former Proposition's false as indeed it is For that a good Pastor may become a Wolf is no news in the Ancient Story of the Church in which are registred the Change of many Great men into Hereticks I spare their Names And since Judas chang'd from an Apostle to a Devil S. John 6. 't is no wonder to see others change from Shepherds into Wolves I doubt the Church is not empty of such Changelings at this day Yea but Stapleton will help all this For he adds That suppose the Pastors do forsake true Doctrine yet Succession shall still be a true Note of the Church Yet not every Succession but that which is legitimate and true Well And what is that Why That Succession is lawful which is of those Pastors which hold entire the Unity and the Faith Where you may see this Sampson's hair cut off again For at his word I 'll take him And if that onely be a Legitimate Succession which holds the Unity and the Faith entire then the Succession of Pastors in the Romane Church is illegitimate For they have had more Schisms among them than any other Church Therefore they have not kept the Unity of the Church And they have brought in gross Superstition Therefore they have not kept the Faith entire Now if A. C. have any minde to it he may do well to help Stapleton out of these briars upon which he hath torn his Credit and I doubt his Conscience too to uphold the Corruptions of the Sea of Rome Num. 9 As for that in which he is quite mistaken it is his Inference which is this That I should therefore consider carefully Whether it be not more Christian and less brain-sick to think that the Pope being S. Peter's Successour with a General Councel should be Judge of Controversies c. And that the Pastoral Judgment of him should be accounted Infallible rather than to make every man that can read the Scripture Interpreter of Scripture Decider of Controversies Controller of General Counsels and Judge of his Judges Or to have no Judge at all of Controversies of Faith but permit every man to believe as he list As if there were no Infallible certainty of Faith to be expected on earth which were instead of one saving Faith to induce a Babylonical Confusion of so many faiths as fancies Or no true Christian Faith at all From which Evils Sweet Jesus deliver us I have considered of this very carefully But this Inference supposes that which I never granted nor any Protestant that I yet know Namely That if I deny the Pope to be Judge of Controversies I must by and by either leave this supream Judicature in the hands and power of every private man that can but read the Scripture or else allow no Judge at all and so let in all manner of Confusion No God forbid that I should grant either For I have expresly declared That the Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church and a lawful and free General Councel determining according to these is Judge of Controversies And that no private man whatsoever is or can be Judge of these Therefore A. C. is quite mistaken and I pray God it be not wilfully to beguile poor Ladies and other their weak adherents with seeming to say somewhat I say quite mistaken to infer that I am either for a private Judge or for no Judge for I utterly disclaim both and that as much if not more than he or any Romanist whoever he be But these things in this passage I cannot swallow First That the Pope with a General Councel should be Judge for the Pope in Ancient Councels never had more power than any the other Patâ—â—â—râ—hs Precedency perhaps for Orders sake and other respects he had Nor had the Pope any Negative voice against the rest in point of difference No nor was he held superiour to the Councel Therefore the ancient Church never accounted or admitted him a Judge no not with a Councel much less without it Secondly it will not down with me that his Pastoral Judgement should be Infallible especially since some of them have been as Ignorant as many that can but read the Scripture Thirdly I cannot admit this â—eâ—ther though he do most cunningly thereby abuse his Readers That any thing hath been said by me out of which it can justly be inferred That there 's no Infallible certainty of Faith to be expected on earth For there is most Infallible certainty of it that is of the Foundations of it in Scripture and the Creeds And 't is so clearly delivered there as that it needs no Judge at all to sit upon it for the Articles themselves And so entire a Body is this one Faith in it self as that the Whole Church much less the Pope hath not power to add one Article to it nor leave to detract any one the least from it But when Controversies arise about the meaning of the Articles or Superstructures upon them which are Doctrines about the Faith not the Faith it self unless where they be immediate Consequences then both in and of these a Lawful and free General Councel determining according to Scripture is the best Judge on earth But then suppose uncertainty in some of these superstructures it can never be thence concluded That there is no Infallible certainty of the Faith it self But 't is time to end especially for me that have so Many Things of Weight lying upon me and disabling me from these Polemick Discourses beside the Burden of sixty five years compleat which draws on apace to the period set by the Prophet David Psal. 90. and to the Time that I must go and give God and Christ an Account of the Talent committed to my Charge In which God for Christ Jesus sake be merciful to me who knows that however in many Weaknesses yet I have with a faithful and single heart bound to his free Grace for it laboured the Meeting the Blessed Meeting of Truth and Peace in his Church and which God in his own good time will I hope effect To Him be all Honour and Praise for ever AMEN FINIS A Table
Spiritui sancto Nobis not used by any posteriour Councel 155. the first and later Councels differently assisted 156 166. whence they have their power and assistance 150 c. the prior may be amended by the posterior 158 c. what decrees of them are necessary to be believed 161. how they are held by the Romanists to be infallible 163. their decrees by Stapleton held to be the Oracles of the Holy Ghost 156. that they are not Prophetical in their conclusions 163 164. Of their necessity and frequency 128. that they may erre the whole Church not erring 168. their errours how to be amended 101. how made of no worth at all by the Romanists without the Pope 17â— Councels and Fathers how we are sure we have their true copies â—â—6 217. Conclusions of Councels how to be believed 226 their determinations not all of equal authority 234. by whom they were and ought to be called 140 141. against the Popes being above a general Councel 218 252. Conditions required to make a Councel lawful 142 143. Protestants invited to one upon doubtful and dangerous terms 92 Of the Councel of Florence and the Greeks their subscribing to it â—27 Councel of Constance her injurious proceeding against Husse c. 92 93. Becanus his defence of it confuted ibid. it s great errour touching Communion in one kinde 170 Councel of Nice the absence of the Western Bishops from it how recompenced 144 Councel of Africk in S. Cypriâ—ns time erred about Baptism by Hereticks 158 Councel of Trent how occasioned and what an one it was 99. not general nor legal and so null 140 143. compared with ancient Councels 26 27 142 143 c. the blinde pâ—rtinacy of the Fathers there 93. her dangerous and wilful errour concerning the intention of those that administer the Sacraments 179 180. claimed by Soâ—o and Vega for their contrary Tenets 32 of things there determined 24. there the Pope ought not to have sate as President 140 141. Bishops made of purpose to make a major part there 143. more Italian Bishops in it than of all Christendome beside ibid. its addition of twelve new Articles to the Creed 222 Creed that it is a Rule of faith 27. that it is wholly grounded on Scripture 29. some words added to it why and by whom 9. Iremâ—us his famous testimony of it 218 Athanasian Creed expounded and vindicated 210 223 S. Cyprian cleared 3 c. and 6 and righted 237 S. Cyril of Alexandria vindicated 8 9 D DEmonstrative reasons of greater force than any other humane proof 161. direct proof and demonstrative how they differ 35 Descent of Christ into Hall how hâ—ld by the Church of England and how by those of Rome 29 30 198 Dissent and difference in opinion what may stand with the peace of the Church 234 235 Disputations their use 82. when and how lawful for a private man to dispute with the whole Church â—4 publike disputations how safe or available 94 95. in what case to be admitted between the English and the Romish Clergy 94 Divinity that it hath a science above it and what 79. the Principles of it otherwise confirmed than those of any other Art 67 68 78 79 Donatus two of that name 196 Donatists compared with the Romanists 194 195 196 whether any of them living and dying so had possibility of salvation and which 195 196. whether they were guilty of Hâ—resie ibid. E EMperour whom the Jesuites would have to be 233 137 vid. Pope Epiphanius cleared and vindicated 121 122 Errours not fundamental to whom and in what case damnable 208 209 242. Errours of Councels vid. Councels Errours of the Romane Church wanting all proof from ancient Councels and Fathers 221 c. 250. what be the most dangerous of them 245. Errours of Papists to whom fundamental 217. vid. Church of Rome Eucharist a threefold Sacrifice in it 199 200. mutilated by the Romane Church 12 170 171. upon what hard terms the Bohemians were dispens'd with to have it in both kinds 198. the Papists tyed by their own grounds to believe of it as the Church of England doth 187 c. the Church of England and other Protestants believe Christs real presence in it 188 289 c. 191 192 193. Concoâ—itancy in it Thomas of Aquin's fiction confuted 198. Bellarmines notorious contradiction of Christs being in it corporally present 192 193. his new and intricate Doctrine touching Tran substantiation 213 214. of the unbloody Sacrifice and the bloody how they differ 199 200. the propitiatory and gratulatory Sacrifice how they differ 199 200 Expositions such only right as the thing expounded containeth 20 The Extravagants censured 139 F FAith how it is unchangable and yet hath been changed 7. what is certain by the certainty of it 25 26. not to be termeâ— the Romane but the Christian or Catholike Faith 88 c. the two Regular precepts of it 27. of its prime Principles and how they differ from the Articles of it 28. the last Resolution of it into what it should be 41 42 c. 57 65 66 215 223 224 c. Faith acquired faith in sus'd wherein either or both required 233. how few things are essential to the Faith 234 235. how its Principles differ from those of sciences 67. its foundation the Scripture 34. by it man brought to his last happiness 68 70 71. how by it the understanding is captivated 72. that it is an act produced by the will 48 68. the Principles of it have sufficient evidence of proof 77. It and Reason compared in their objects c. 164 c. a latitude in it in reference to different mens salvation 212 236. things of two sorts belonging to it 24. what by it to be believ'd explicitly what not 217 218. of the perfection and certainty of it 252. of things not necessary to salvation no infallible Faith can be among men 233. foundation of Faith how shaken 25. how fretted by those of Rome 59. the Catholike and now Romane Faith â—ot both one 220. Faith of Scripture to be Gods Word infused by the Holy Ghost 47 48. the true grounds of it 71 72 73 74. our Faith of it how it differs from that of those who wrote Scripture 70 71. Faith of Scripture that it hath all perfections necessary 73 74. how firm and invincible it is 74 75 Felicity what it is and that the soul of man is capable of it 72 Ferus his acknowledgment of the difference 'twixt the first Councels and the late ones 156 Fundamental what maketh a point to be such 19 20 22. that decrees of Councels are not such 87. what points be so and what not 17 18. 21 22 27 c. 217 218. not all of a like primeness 28. all Fundamentals held by the whole Church 18. Points not Fundamental how and to whom necessary to salvation 18 19. Firm and Fundamental how they differ 23 G GErson his ingenuity 99 Holy Ghost how said to be lost 14. his
117. and how recovered 118. primacy of order granted them by Ecclesiastical Constitutions but no Principality of power from Christ 109 110. some of them opposed by the African Church 112. some of them Hereticks 124. some Apostates 173. some false Prophets 174. how unfit Judges of Controversies 162 163 254. the lâ—wd lives of many of them 172. Pope Liberius his clear testimony against the Popes Infallibility 173 Prayer what requisite that it may be heard 127 154 155. Prayer for the dead that it presupposeth not Purgatory 162 Preachers how their Preaching to be esteemed of 64. none since the Apostles infallible 232 Precisians their opposition to lawful Ceremonies occasioned by the Romanists 183. that there be of them in the Romane Church no less then in the Protestant 87. their agreement in many things 64 Princes the moderation and equiquity of all that are good 103 the power of Soveraign Princes in matters Ecclesiastical 111. all of the Clergy subject to them 134 Prophecy the spirit of it not to be attained by study 163 164 Protestants why so called 87 of their departing from the errours of the Roman Church 86 87. On what terms invited by Rome to a general Councel 92 93 their charitable grant of possibility of salvation in the Romane Church met with uncharitableness by the Roman party 184 185. they that deny possibility of salvation to them confuted 186 187. their Faith sufficient to salvation 212 Purgatory not thought on by any Father within the three first hundred years 227. not presupposed by Prayer for the dead ibid. Origen the first Founder of it 226 230. proofs of it examined ibid. the Purgatories mentioned by the Fathers different from that believ'd by Rome 228 229. the Fathers alledg'd for it cleared 227 c. the Papists their Blasphemous assertion touching the necessity of believing it 231. Bellarmines contradiction touching the beginning of it ibid. R REason not excluded or blemished by grace 48 49. the chief use of it 51. what place it hath in the proof of divine supernatural truths 39 48. how high it can go in proving the truth of Christian Religion 49 165 Reformation in what case it 's lawful for a particular Church to Reform her self 96 c. and to publish any thing that 's Catholike in faith or manners 97 108. Examples of it 99 100. Reformation by Protestants how to be judged of 99 faults incident to Reformation and Reformers of Religion 101. who the chief hinderers of a general Reformation 101. Reformation of the Church of England justified 114. the manner of it 100 101. what places Princes have in the Reformation of the Church ibid. Christian Religion how the truth of it proved by the Ancients 49. the propagation of it and the firmness where it 's once received 50 51. the evil of believing it in one sort and practising it in another 243 244. yet this taught by some Jesuites and Romish Priests ibid. one Christian Religion of Protestants and Romanists though they differ in it 245. private mens opinions in Religion not to be esteemed the Churches 20. Religion as it is professed in the Church of England nearest of any Church now being to the Primitive Church 245. Resurrection what believed by all Christians what by some Hereticks denied 201 202 Private Revelation in what case to be admitted 49 Divine Revelation the necessity of it 73 B. Rhenanus purged on behalf of Rome 239 B. Ridley his full confession of the Real Presence 193. his conviction of Archbishop Cranmers judgment touching it 192 Romanes who truly such and their true priviledge 4. Rome her praeter and super-structures in the â—aith 7. 8. She and Spain compared in their two Monarchies 137. Heresies both begun and maintained in her 9. 10. wherein she hath erred 12. whether impossible for the Apostolike Sea to be removed thence 12 13. that she may Apostatize 13. her definitions of things not necessary 21. She the chief hinderance of a general Reformation 110. of her pretended Soveraignty and the bad effects of it 102 103 c. what Principality and Power She hath and whence 109 110 114 c. 120. She not the head of the Church nor did all Churches depend on her 111 112 119. that she hath kept nor faith nor unity inviolated 253. whether all Christians be bound to agree with her in faith 119. and in what case they are so 120. the ancient bounds of her jurisdiction 120. possibility of Salvation in her and to whom 118 105 c. the danger of living and dying in her Communion 193 195 196 197. her rigour and cruelty beyond that of Schismatical Israel 194. her fundamental errours of what nature 208. the Catholike Church her Head and Root not she of it 240 c. Roman Sea in what case a particular Church may make Canons with out consulting it 98 99 c. 109. Romanists their cunning dealing with their Converts in fieri 83. of their calling for a free hearing 94 95. their agreement with the Donatists in contracting the Church to their side 188 189. their danger in different respects lesser or greater than that of the Donatists 196 Ruffinus his pernicious cunning 6 his dissent from the Romane Church 10. branded by the Pope with Heresie 11. his words explained 8 9 10 S SAcraments against the necessity of his intention who administers them 178 179 c. 200 213 Sacriledge and Schism usually go together 101 Saints against the Invocation of them 181. they are made by Bellarmine to be Numina and in some sort our Redeemers ibid. Salvation controversies amongst the Romanists about the certainty of it 32 Schism the heinousness of it 95 who the cause of it at this day 86 88 126. the continuance of it whence 94 Schismatical Church to live in one and to communicate in the Schism how different 194. the Protestants their leaving Rome no Schism 126. of the Schism of Israel and those that lived there in the time of it 97 194 Science supream what 78 Scotus righted 20 Scripture that it was received and hath continued uncorrupt 79 what books make up the Canon of it 11. all parts of it alike firm not alike fundamental 27. that it is the Word of God is a prime principle of faith 28 c. 75 76 80 the sufficiency of it 34 75 76 c. 81. how known to be Gods Word 38 c. Of the Circular probation of Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture 38 75 the different ways of proving it 39. it is a higher proof than the Churches Tradition 40. the testimony proving it must be Divine and Infallible 43 45 47 whether it can be known to be Gods Word by its own light 45 46. and that the Roman Church by her own Tenet ought so to hold 46. what the chief and what the first inducement to the credibility of it 53 54 57 65 66 68. the Divine light thereof and what light the natural man sees in it 53 54. Confirmation by
in the Apostles that witnessed it But to make it knowledge in the Auditors the same or like Revelation and as clear must be made to them For they could have no other knowing Assurance Credible they might and had So A. C. is wary there but comes not home to the Business and so might have held his peace For the Question is not what clear Evidence the Apostles had but what Evidence they had which heard them * Esay 53. 1. †Jer. 20. 7. ‖ Acts 17. 32. And had Zedechiah and the people seen it as clearly as Jeremy himself did that the word he spake was Gods word and Infallible Jerusalem for ought we know had not been laid desolate by the Chaldean But because they could not see this by the way of knowledge and would not believe it by way of Faith they and that City perished together Jer. 38. 17. * Nemo pius nisi qui Scripturae credit S. Aug. L. 26. cont Fanstum c. 6. Now no Man believes the Scripture that doth not believe that it is the Word of God I say which doth not believe I do not say which doth not know Oportet quod Credatur Authoritati eorum quibus Revelatio facta est Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quod vero Animam habemus unde manifestum Si enim Visibilibus credere velis de Deo de Angelis de meute de Animâ dubitabis sic tibi omnia veritatis dogmata deperibunt Et certé si manifestis credere velis Invisibilious magis quà m Visibilibus credere oportet Licet enim admirabile sit dictum verum tamen apud mentem habentes valde certum vel in confesso Ex homil 13. S. Chrysost. in S. Mat. To. 1. Edit Fronto Paris 1636. * Nemo pius nisi qui Scripturae credit S. Aug. L. 26. cont Fanstum c. 6. Now no Man believes the Scripture that doth not believe that it is the Word of God I say which doth not believe I do not say which doth not know Oportet quod Credatur Authoritati eorum quibus Revelatio facta est Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quod vero Animam habemus unde manifestum Si enim Visibilibus credere velis de Deo de Angelis de meâ—te de Animâ dubitabis sic tibi omnia veritatis dogmata deperibunt Et certé si manifestis credere velis Invisibilious magis quà m Visibilibus credere oportet Licet enim admirabile sit dictum verum tamen apud mentem habentes valde certum vel in confesso Ex homil 13. S. Chrysost. in S. Mat. To. 1. Edit Fronto Paris 1636. Pun. 6. †And this is the Ground of that which I said before §. 15. Nu. 1. That the Scripture only and not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of our Faith Namely when the Authority of Scripture is first yeelded unto S. Luke 9. 23. ‖ Intellectus Credentis determinatur per Voluntatem non per Rationem Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad tertium And what power the Will hath in Case of mens Believing or not Believing is manifest Jer. 44. But this is spoken of the Will compared with the Understanding only leaving the Operations of Grace free over both Pun. 7. b Coâ—â—n â—ijis enim sententia est Patrum Theologorum aliorum demonstrari posse naturali ratione Deum esse Sed à posteriori per effectus Sic Tho. p. 1. q. 2. A. 2. Et Damasc. I. 1 Ortho. Fid. c. 3. Almain in 3. sent D. 24. q. 1. But what may be demonstrated by natural reason by natural light may the same be known And so the Apostle himself Rom. 1. 20. Invisibilia Dei a Creaturâ mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntut And so Calvin most clearly I. 1. Instit. c. ◠§. 1. Aperire oculos nequeunt quin aspicere eum coguntur though Bellarmine would needs be girding at him L. 4. de Grat. Lib. Arbit cap. 2. Videtur autem Ratio iis quae apparent attestari Omnes enim homines de Diis ut ille loquitur habent existimationem Arist. I. 1. de Coelo T. 22. c Damasc. L. 1. Ortho. Fid. c. 4. d 1 Tim. 6. 16. Et uâ— Vestiglum sic accedendi relinquit S. Aug. nisi dugeas imaginatione cogitationis lucem solis innumerabiliter vel quid aliud c. â— 8. de Trin. c. 2. Solus modus accedendi Preces sunt Boet. de Consolat Philos. L. 5. prosa 3. e Prates Scientias Philosophicas necesse est ut ponatur alia Scientia divinitâ—s revelata de iis quae hominis captum excedunt Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 1. f And therefore Biel is express That God could not reveal any thing that is to come nisi illud esset â— Deo praescitum seu praevisum i. e. unless God did fully comprehend that which he doth reveal Biâ—l in 3. sent D. 23. q. 2. A. 1. g Nullus Intellectus Creatus videndo Deum potest cognoscere Omnia que Deus facit vel potest facere Hoc enim esset Comprehendere ejus virtutem c. Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. C. Ad Argumentum Quod Deus ut Speculum est Et quod omnia quae fieri possunt in eo resplendent Respondet Thom. Quod non est necessarium quod videns speculum omnia in speculo videat nisi speculum vtsu suo comprehendat Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. ad 2. Now no man can comprehend this Glass which is God Himself h Deus enim est Speculum voluntarium revelans quae quot vult alicui beato non est Speculum naturaliter repraesentans omnia Biel. Suppl in 4. Sent. D. 49. q. 3. propos 3. i For if Reason well put to its search did not find this out how came Arist. to affirm this by rational disquisition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Restat ut mens sola extrinsecùs accâ—dat eaque sola divina sit nihil enim cum ejus Actione communicat Actio corporalis Arist. l. 2. de gen Anim. c. 3. This cannot be spoken of the Soul were it mortal And therefore I must needs be of Paulus Benius his opinion who says plainly and proves it too Turpiter affixam à quibusdam Aristottli Mortalitatis Animae Opinionem Benius in Timaeum Platonis Decad. 2 â— L. 3. k For if Reason did not dictate this also whence is it that Aristotle disputes of the way and means of attaining it L. 1. Moral c. 9. And takes on him to prove That Felicity is rather an Honourable than a Commendable thing c. 12. And after all this he adds Deo beata tota vita est hominibus autem catenus quatenus similitudo quaedam ejusmodi Operationis ipsis inest Arist. L. 10. Moral c. 8. l S. John 17. 3. Ultima Beatitudo
boty by Divine and by Infallible Proof But our Certainty is by Faith and so voluntary not by Knowledge of such Principles as in the light of Nature can enforce Assent whether we will or no. I have said thus much upon this great Occasion because this Argument is so much pressed without due respect to Scripture And I have proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed Whereas had I desired only to rid my hands of these Captious Jesuites for certainly this Question was Captiously asked it had been sufficient to have restored the Question thus How do you know the Testimony of the Church by which you say you know Scripture to be the Word of God to be Divine and Infallible If they prove it by Scripture as all of them do and as A. C. doth how do they know that Scripture to be Scripture It is but a Circular Assurance of theirs by which they found the Churches Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Scripture And the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church That is upon the Matter the Churches Infallibility upon the Churches Infallibility But I labour for edification not for destruction And now by what I have here said I will weigh my Answer and his Exception taken against it F. The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be Supposed and needed not to be Proved B. § 17 Why but did I say That this Principle The Books of Scripture are the Word of God is to be supposed as needing no Proof at all to a Natural man Or to a man newly entring upon the Faith yea or perhaps to a Doubter or Weakling in the Faith Can you think me so weak It seems you do But sure I know there is a great deal of difference between Ethnicks that deny and deride the Scripture and men that are Born in the Church The first have a farther way about to this Principle The other in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it That the Books commonly called The Bible or Scripture are the Word of God And I dealt with you as with a Christian though in Errour while you call Catholike The Words before spoken by me were That the Scripture only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of Faith The Question between us and you is Whether the Scripture do contain all necessary things of Faith Now in this Question as in all Nature and Art the Subject the Scripture is and must be supposed The Quaere between the Roman-Catholicks and the Church of England being only of the Praedicate the thing uttered of it Namely Whether it contain all Fundamentals of Faith all Necessaries for Salvation within it Now since the Question proposed in very form of Art proves not but supposes the Subject I think I gave a satisfying Answer That to you and me and in this Question Scripture was a Supposed Principle and needed no Proof And I must tell you that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect Continent it is against all Art yea and Equity too in Reasoning to call for a proof of That here which must go unavoydably supposed in this Question And if any man will be so familiar with Impiety to Question it it must be tried in a preceding Question and Dispute by it self Yet here not you only but Bellarmine and others run quite out of the way to snatch at Advantage F. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Reply against M. John White Wherein I plainly shewed that this Answer was not good and that no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point ◠§ 18 Num. 1 Indeed here you read out of a Book which you called your own a large Discourse upon this Argument But surely I so untied the knot of the Argument that I set you to your Book again For your self confess that against this you read what you had formerly written Well! what ere you read there certain it is you do a great deal of wrong to M. Hooker and my self that because we call it a Supposed or Presumed Principle among Christians you should fall by and by into such a Metaphysical Discourse to prove That that which is a Praecognitum fore-known in Science must be of such light that it must be known of and by it self alone and that the Scripture cannot be so known to be the Word of God Num. 2 I will not now enter again into that Discourse having said enough already how far the Beam which is very glorious especially in some parts of Scripture gives light to prove it self You see neither Hooker nor I nor the Church of England for ought I know leave the Scripture alone to manifest it self by the light which it hath in it self No but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way like a preparing Morning-Light to Sun-shine then indeed we settle for our Direction yet not upon the first opening of the morning-light but upon the Sun it self Nor will I make needless enquiry how far and in what manner a Praecognitum or Supposed Principle in any Science may be proved in a Higher to which that is subordinate or accepted for a Prime Nor how it may in Divinity where Prae as well as Post-cognita things fore as well as after-known are matters and under the manner of Faith and not of Science strictly Nor whether a Praecognitum a presupposed Principle in Faith which rests upon Divine Authority must needs have as much and equal Light to Natural Reason as Prime Principles have in Nature while they rest upon Reason Nor whether it may justly be denied to have sufficient Light because not equal Your own School grants That in us which are the Subjects both of Faith and Knowledge and in regard of the Evidence given in unto us there is less Light less Evidence in the Principles of Faith than in the Principles of Knowledge upon which there can be no doubt But I think the School will never grant That the Principles of Faith even this in Question have not sufficient Evidence And you ought not to do as you did without any Distinction or any Limitation deny a Praecognitum or Prime Principle in the Faith because it answers not in all things to the Prime Principles in Science in their Light and Evidence a thing in it self directly against Reason Num. 3 Well though I do none of this yet first I must tell you that A. C. here steps in again and tells me That though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearly known as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion between them that whether it be in Science or in Faith the Praecognitum or thing supposed as known must be prius cognitum