Durand Scotus Gabriel and Almain for concluding that the authority of the Church is the reason of our belief of the things of Faith 2. From immediate inspiration of the Spirit Thus the Apostles were immediately inspired so that in their delivering of the truth they could neither fallere nec falli neither deceive nor be deceived this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 The later of whom perswades us to give heed to the word of God because the holy pen-men of it were inspired by the H. Ghost Again for power which you leave unexplained it may be observed that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belonging to Christ 1. Authoritative which is his designation or appointment hereunto this may be understood by that text you cite As my Father sent me c. 2. Qualitative or dispositive this is Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one is his power the other his authority Again this power is exercised two wayes 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him Thus it s said All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you Joh. 15.15 This is his outward teaching 2. By commanding the heart to believe and consent to those truths he reveals this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal 110. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth by stamping upon it a divine authority Majesty and withall by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it This way doth Christ exercise his power in bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures as the rule of its belief 2. I proceed now to your consequence He having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians Ans 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother or give other Churches liberty to claim equal priviledges with her whilst you talk of Churches you neglect construction and come in with a She may challenge 2. 'T is false that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them For 1. There is no need of another rule for them the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christians and fully sufficient and perfect as your self confess If that Christs teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule i. e. be a compleat and perfect rule what needs another rule or can this other rule be higher then that which hath its full height or have greater extent then that which is perfect the perfection of Christs rule shews that nothing can be added to it If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians but not for after Christians I desire to know the ground of this distinction for I am ignorant of it 2. The succeeding Church hath not communicated to her the same knowledg and power that Christ had her knowledg is not universal there hath been in every Age since your Churches Apostacy an addition of supposed truths which the former Age believed not Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds as necessary to be believed unto Salvation which formerly were not so imposed if once thought of sure then the Church before the Trent Council either knew not the whole revealed will of God and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief or you propound a larger object then Faith will well admit Again her knowledg is not infallible as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed Besides this it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before the same may be said of power it s not the same with Christ they want both his power and authority as I have explained them Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach be the same that Jesus Christ and his Apostles preached and taught then it is a rule of Faith to us but thus it s not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule but its identity with the Scriptures the marrow of Christs and the Apostles preaching Thus the assertion is true otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule as I have already shewed and this is my Antagonists meaning as appears by his next words All matters of Faith as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account c. 2. Consequence or rather the first consequence arising from that is in these words Whence it follows pag. 13. that all matters of belief as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit Ans 1. If by other points you understand other points of Faith then are contained in Scripture you take that for granted which is notoriously false viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures containe not and consequently that they are imperfect and insufficient to be a rule of Faith and this is most false For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them that was all contained in Scripture and more was not imposed as necessary to be believed to Salvation I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more then Scripture even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions but as it contains more then Scripture so is it much larger then any Creed that was used before it so that either their Faith was imperfect having an imperfect foundation or yours is redundant transgresseing the bounds of a right and ancient rule 2. The Scriptures testifie their own sufficiency 2 Tim. 3.15 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts Act 26.22 with chap. 20.27 Lyran. He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation and yet preached nothing but what the Scriptures did contain Ans 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that other fundamental points besides this The Scriptures are the word of God are the truths of God and to be believed meerly because the Church asserts it so that the Churches affirmation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths as I suppose you mean this I deny For 1. The Scriptures contain in themselves arguments that may convince a true Christian that they are the Word of God Many notes are given by Protestants which to you pulling them in pieces and viewing them singly seem weak which conjunctim or all together have
one or two plain Scriptures proving the Word of God to be that whereunto a Christians faith is to be conformable The Apostle continued witnessing both to small and great saying None other things then those wâ—ich the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass Acts 26.22 This was his teaching And for his own faith you have it Acts 24.14 This I confess unto thee that after the way which they call Heresie so worship I the God of my fathers believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets I shall put you in mind of what one of your Proselites writes about this Point I found that by consent of all Christians Dr Vane Lost Sheep return p. 5 6. this knowledg of the means to attain to happiness was not to be gotten by clear and evident sight nor by humane discourse founded on the principles of Reason nor by reliance upon Authority meerly humane but Only by Faith Grounded On The Word of GOD revealing unto men things that were otherwise only known to his infinite Wisdom seeing the Church to the worlds end must be built on the Apostles and Believe Nothing as Matter of Faith beside that which was delivered of them as St. Paul saith Ephes 2.20 Your self also when you come to the Point to speak of the Rule of Faith say that the Truth of God revealed and expressed to us is the Rule of Faith Chap. 9. If Faith be grounded on Gods Word and that this Word of God be the Rule of Faith How can the Church be it seeing there is a vast difference betwixt the Truth and the Church as betwixt a Rule and him that bears it Can you say properly that a man that keeps the standard in his house is the standard or that the post that bears it is it or that the ship that carries the compass is the compass Now you only say that the Church is the Pillar of Truth i. e. it doth but bear it If the Church be the Rule of Faith then I wonder what Rule they have sure not themselves and they being men like us they cannot be without a Rule no more then they can be Christians and yet want faith 3. You say By the first Conformity man comes to the knowledg of God as he is the Author and End of Grace by the second he relies upon his Mercy and Goodness c. Ans 1. You seem to make faith a bare knowledg distinct from reliance on Gods mercy and goodness whereby you give too little to faith whose acts are not only to discern God and divine objects but to rely upon that merciful and good promise of God whereby he offers himself and divine objects to be received by us By this receiving is faith expressed John 1.12 If faith be no more but bare knowledg then Devils yea Reprobates may have true faith yea and may hope in Gods mercy for faith is the foundation of sound hope Your Vasquez is more ingenious then most of you for he acknowledgeth that besides a dogmatical or historical faith Vasq in 1. 2. To. 2. disp 209. c. 1. 4. which he calls Catholike there is also a peculiar faith whereby a Christian believes that he is or shall be justified or saved And this faith is the foundation of that hope you mention and not much differing from it only that as hope looks at the thing promised so faith doth more directly reflect upon the promise though Vasquez saith the same of faith that you of hope Cujus generis est fides qua aliquis credit se a Deo per orationem obtenturum id quod petit c. I shall conclude this with the words of learned Rivet Ineptiunt ergo ne quid gravius dicam qui cum tribuant fideli spem fiduciam circa electionem gratiam salut m Propriam fidem tamen negant Rivet sum Cont. Tract 4. q. 16. ss 6. But as you cast faith here below it self so in the next Chapter you set up Charity above it self making it the soul of faith CHAP. III. Of the Diversities of Faiths Hopes and Charities IN this Chapter I shall only take notice of two passages 1. You say The means of habitual and actual divine Faith Hope and Charity is the Tradition of the Church Ans 1. If by the Tradition of the Church you mean the true and right Exposition of Scripture made by faithful Pastors and Teachers of the Church as Vincentius Lyrinensis understands it then I shall easily consent to you for it is no more then the Apostle himself asserts when he saith Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10.17 But 2. If you mean the Churches opinions distinct from Scripture or unwritten Verities as they are called by you then I affirm that these are not means for your proposed end the Scripture it self without your additions being sufficient to make the man of God perfect in all graces And this you are not altogether unconvinced of as appears by your Preachers who in their Sermons do ground their discourses upon Texts of Scriptures and I suppose their Sermons are intended to be means of faith hope c. 2. You say St Paul gives to Charity the preeminence And not undeservedly for she is the enlivening Soul of Faith and Hope c. both they being out of her company as dead bodies without life or motion c. Your assertion is grounded upon two Scriptures viz. 1 Cor. 13.13 and James 2.26 For the first I freely subscribe to the preeminence of Charity but upon the Apostles reason not yours which is the continuance of Charity when Faith and Hope fail Thus the Apostle is understood by your ordinary Gloss Primasius Augustine and the generality of Expositors In presenti tria haec Lyran. in 1 Cor. 13.13 in futuro sola charitas permanebit Majus est ergo quod semper erit quam quod aliquando cessabit But you say It 's the Soul of Faith c. This I deny For 1. Your own Authors do earnestly contend that true faith yea that faith that justifies and is joyned with hope and charity 1 Cor. 13.13 may be without charity charity therefore cannot be the soul of faith for the enlivening soul cannot be absent from its body and yet that body remain a true living humane body 2. The Apostle saith that faith without works is dead as the body without the soul yet you will not say that good works are the soul of faith whereby it hath life and motion Your Rhemists assert it that the Thief on the Cross wanted good works and thereupon conclude RheÌ„ Annot. on Luke 23.43 that Faith hope c. will be sufficient and good works not required where for want of time and opportunity they cannot be had Now can you say that his faith was without life and motion It had so much life and motion that it brought him to Heaven by your own confession Now if the
The reasons of my denial are these 1. It s the priviledg of the Word of God written or the Scripture to be the ground of Faith These things are written that ye might believe Joh. 20. ult i. e. that your Faith might have a certain foundation revelations or traditions being more uncertain and easily pretended where they have no existence or being Compare with this 2 Pet. 1.18.19 Ye have a more sure word of Prophecie that is In quo magis confirmetur auditor whereby the hearer may be more confirmed So that the word is more sure and that to us inasmuch as we are thereby more confirmed Hence it is that our Saviour sends his hearers to the Scriptures that therein they might finde what they have to believe Joh. 5.39 So doth the Prophet Isa 8.20 and Abraham in the parable Luk. 16.29 which your Lyranus comments thus upon Lyran. in Luk. 1 is 29. Habent Moysen c. they have Moyses who taught moral actions and the Prophets who delivered mysteries of Faith and these suffice to salvation therefore it follows let them hear them This was the measure of the Apostles preaching and faith Act. 26.22 Act. 17.10.11 By this the Bereans tryed the truth of the Apostles preaching and for its conformity thereto Annot. of Divines on the Text. did receive it into their belief 't is said therefore many of them believed i. e. because of the testimony of the Scriptures So that we may truly say that if the Apostles had preached any thing beside or contrary to Scripture the Bereans would not have believed their preaching and the Apostle himself would have justified them herein Gal. 1.8.9 On which Text Augustine hath this note Qui praeter greditur Aug. apud Lyran. in c. He that goes beside the rule of Faith doth not walk in the way but departs from it Neither would the Apostle himself have us found our hope on him but on that truth which he declared That which was spoken by him was better then he by whom it was spoken From whence what can be more clearly infer'd then that 1. The Word of God preached is the rule of Faith And 2. That faith is not resolved into persons preaching the truth but into the truth preached by them contrarie to both which is your minor Proposition 2. Ans Supposing it true that the Church must be the ground of Faith yet I affirme that this is not yours or any other present Church but only the Primitive Church which as I have already shewed is of greater authority then the present Church which is in a kind grounded upon the Apostolike Church or that Church which contains the Prophets Apostles c. All succeeding Churches are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets whose testimony because of their visible converse with God and Christ becomes efficax ad credendum effectual for the grounding of Faith It s observeable that whereas Abraham might have told the rich man that his Brethren had a present Church to hearken to yet he only mentions Moses and the Prophets 2. I affirm that if your Church be a foundation of Faith yet this would not be a Divine but only an humane Faith And indeed this is the very reason why your Doctors commonly held that Faith is ultimately resolved upon God himself revealing the truth as Azorius observes because Divine Faith must be resolved into a Divine testimony which the testimony of the Church is not and they prove it by divers arguments especially by foure which I have transcribed out of Azorius And though he do not altogether adhere to their opinion Ratio 1. Ecclesiae testimonium est quidem divinum sed participatione non per se sua naturâ at Dei testimonium est divinum per se suâ naturâ fides divina resolvi debet in testimonium quod sit per se non autem participatione divinum 2. Quae sunt fidei revelatione Divinâ non naturae lumine sunt patefacta at Deus est qui revelat ac pandit res fidei non ecclesia 3. In Angelis Prophetis Apostolis caeteris Librorum Cananicorum Scriptoribus fides non resolvebat in ecclesiae testimonium sed in Deum per se pro xime revelantem at fides nostra est ejusdem speciei cujus fui illa Ergo in eandem rationem credendi reducitur 4. Quamvis ecclesia sit testis non tamen Condit aliquem articulum fidei sed declarat explicat quae sunt fidei c. Azor. Instit Moral Parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. but allows somthing to the Church yet he acknowledges that it 's ex accidenti by accident that our Faith is resolved into the Churches authority Again 2. Many learned Papists believe and teach that it 's onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that this or the other Pope is Peters Successor and Christs Vicar on earth because it depends on this Proposition that this or the other Pope is orderly and Canonically chosen to the Popedome which is also objected against General Councils Now how can we believe a Popes Decrees for a Divine Faith when it s onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that he is Pope or Peters Successor Becanus clearly resolves That if any stay in the resolution of the Church and ascend not to the Scripture his assent who believes because of the authority of the Church is not an assent of Theological Faith but of an other inferiour order viz. that which Scotus calls an acquired Faith and saith is only conceived by the Churches testimony which indeed is nothing else but an human faith for its such a Faith whereby we believe one that may both be deceived himself and may deceive us although we believe that he will not deceive us Sot lib. 2. de Nat. grat c. 7. Hereupon Sotus acknowledgeth of him that he held the authoritie of the Church to be only humane than which what can be more contradictory to your assertion 3. Ans I grant that the testimony of the Church is an external motive to belief as is also consent of people conformitie of the things believed to natural light accomplishment of Prophecies Miracles Gods Judgments against the Enemies of Truth c. The testimonie of the woman of Samaria was an external motive to the Samaritanes belief not the formal cause of it so the preaching of Godly Ministers is a means whereby men are brought to believe yet you will not conclude that Faith is built on them and they infallible It is the Church by which as a means not for which as the formal ground we do believe Your fifth Argument is taken from the Churches composure and nature 5. Arg. p. 18. 16. in these words Look on the Churches composure and nature and her strength will appear yet more by reason she is framed and made up of men Gen. 22. dispersed and spread over the world Act. 1. who
which are dangerous meerly because we hold them 2. Impatience of labour Papists will not set themselves to read our books or if they read not to study them should I go over these parts where I live I believe I should not finde one Papist that doth seriously read our books nor can tell you truly what we hold they spend their time in other things and will not be perswaded to imploy themselves this way 3. The restraint that is laid upon them that they dare not read them Pope Pius by his Bull forbad Papists to look into the books of Calvin Bucer Bullinger and such like Heretiques as he calls them contrary to the practise of Protestants who are permitted to read Popish Books Dr. Reynolds takes notice of this injunction Reynold praelec 3. de lib. Apocr and saith Licet Pontif. Rom. prudentiam admirari qui suis interdicit ne legant habeant ve librum aliquem haeresiarcharum istorum quos appellat nempe si Calvinum Bucerum Bullingerum inspicere sinerent viderent quales Medii sint ipsorum Magisiri Hic in officinis Bibliothecis nostris cujus legendi permittuntur haeresiarchae Pontificii fortasse nimium peccamus in alteram partem Nay such is the care of these men that what we hold be not known to their people that the controversies written by their own men wherein our Doctrines are discovered and weakly confuted are not suffered to walk publikely where the Pope bears sway its observeable what Sir Edvin Sands writes Those principal Writers who have imployed themselves wholly in refuting from point to point the Protestants Doctrine and Arguments are so rare in Italy as by ordinary enquiry not to be found the controversies of Bellarmine I sought for in Venice in all places neither that nor Gregory of Valenza nor any of such quality could I ever in any such Shop in Italy set eye on but instead of them an infinite of meer invectives and declamations yea further they are not ashamed to censure some of the Holy Writers as seemingly at least consenting with us as the same Author notes Europ Specul pag. 156. The Papists saith he are very jealous of S. Pauls Epistles and think them dangerous so that some of their Jesuites of late in Italy in solemn Sermons and other of their favourers elswhere in private communication commending S. Peter for a worthy Spirit have censured S. Paul for an hot-headed person who was transported so with his pangs of zeal and eagerness beyond all compass in sundry his disputes that there was no great reckoning to be made of his assertions yea he was dangerous to read as savouring of Heresie in some places c. Certainly Papists are much afraid of books whereby the judgment might be informed lest their Disciples reading them should with that Author who was set to confute Calvin by our books be converted to the truth while they find our arguments solid and those accusations of Heresies cast on us by their Rabbi's to be nothing but slander and therefore most prudently the children of this world being wiser in their Generation then the children of light do they confine them to some kinde of books whereby a kinde of devotion may be excited in them but little of sound knowledg attained by them or rather tying them to Beads instead of books to dumb Pictures instead of the Gospel those lively representers of Jesus Christ and to railings and invectives instead of controversie When I consider these things I cannot but pity the common sort of Papists and withal admire the impudency of their Priests who while they cry up the peoples freedom of will yet flatly deny them to have any judgment 2. I desire to know who these Authors you mention are and whether they are yet unanswered I 'm sure there are many learned answers extant to the Popish books formerly written and for the late ones they are not yet grown common as they come to the knowledg of learned men I doubt not but they will receive their answers In the meane time though the meanest of that Tribe that desires to be learned I have attempted to answer your book to which I now depending on the assistance of Gods Spirit do address my self CHAP. I. Of Happiness WHen I had considered this Title and read the Chapter and compared it with others following I presently thought of those Locusts that came out of the smoak of the bottomless pit and of the shape wherein they are represented to us Apoc. 9.7 On their heads were as it were crowns of gold and they had brest-plates as it were brest-plates of iron and the sound of their wings was as the sound of charets of many horses running to battel and they had tails like unto scorpions and there were stings in their tails c. This Chapter is the crown like gold in the head of your Book one or two of your Chapters following have the faces of men the countenance of truth though not without some excrements of the Romish Whore the rest of your Book is military and hath a sound of War and the tail of it which is your Epilogue is the tail of a Scorpion and hath a sting in it wherewith to hurt the simple I shall therefore pass over this Chapter which is Christian to come to that in the others which is Popish CHAP. II. Of the Way to Happiness SEct. 2. you say God hath appointed the means to mans natural happiness to be acts of his understanding aâ—d will for by them he may seek and find out God as he is the Author and End of Nature by these cleave and unite and so enjoy him to mans supernatural happiness to be a Conformity of Faith to the Church a Conformity of Hope to our Lords Prayer and a Conformity of Charity to the Commandments Reply 1. Are not the acts of understanding and will means to supernatural happiness for by them he seeks and finds out God as he is the Author of Grace by these he cleaves and unites and so enjoys God his Saviour and Redeemer When you say Sect. 3. that by faith a man comes to the knowledg of God as he is the Author and End of Grace do not you think that faith is an act of the understanding or will But you were so big-bellyed with the Church that you travelled to be delivered of it and therefore not heeding what you have said you tell us of a Conformity of Faith to the Church 2. I confound Means of divers natures viz. those that are proximate and have an agency or activity in them as understanding and will and those that are remote and do only dispose and help those proximate and active means towards their intended end The proximate means of natural and supernatural happiness are the same only those faculties are helped as to natural happiness by the Books of Nature and the Creatures as to supernatural happiness by the Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament See Rom. 1.19 20. 2 Tim. 3.15 16.17 John 17.3 3. Your Conformity of Faith to the Church in a Popish sence is a novel phrase not used by the first Christians nor the Apostles of Christ in any of their writings nor did they ever bid men beleeve as the Church beleeved though that was of greater authority then the present Church is but still called their faith to the Word of God contrary to which if Paul or any other Apostles yea or Angels from Heaven did preach the people were to reject them and no doubt if Paul had preached such stuff as now Popish Sermons are filled with traditions and new decrees ungrounded on Gods Word the Beraeans had rejected him and his praying It was for want of this Conformity of Faith to the Word of God that our Saviour upbraids the two Disciples that travelled to Emaus Luk. 24.25 He saith not O flow of heart to beleeve all that the Church beleeves this as I said was no Scripture language nor known to primitive Christians but to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken And that he may lead them to this Conformity of Faith he expounds not the Decrees and Constitutions of Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair whereof there were many but 't is said Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself vers 27. Sir I beleeve you are so dutiful a son to the Church that had you been in Christs stead you would rather have told them of Popes decretal Epistles then of Prophets writings of Traditions rather then Scripture if such things then had had a being But 4. Why could not you say a Conformity of Faith to the Truth revealed as well as a Conformity of Faith to the Church revealing the Truth The Truth revealed not the Church revealing it is the Rule of Faith as I shall shew hereafter 1. You might have done well once for all to have told us what you mean by The Church for the word is diversly attributed even by those who in general agree that it is only the Roman Church as you seem by your Epistle to the Reader to understand it 2. You urge Scripture to prove your Assertion viz. three Texts Mat. 28.19 Luke 10.16 Mat. 16. The two first do not so much as mention the word Church the last mentions the word but proves not the thing you bring it for 1. Mat. 28. Going teach ye all Nations Ans I wonder in what word the proof lies I suppose it 's not in Going and I dare say Teaching proves it not for then every Teacher should be a Rule of Faith besides the Apostles were not to teach men to hang their faith upon themselves or others whether of the Roman or any other Church but they were commanded to teach men to do whatsoever Christ had commanded vers 10. amongst which this was the principal work to believe on him whom God had sent Joh. 6.29 viz. Jesus Christ to whom they were brought by the Apostles preaching as living stones to be built upon a foundation 2. Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ans I suppose this Text is brought to explain the other which had need of a Commentary to make it speak your language But 1. This is spoken primarily and absolutely of the Apostles who were Christs mouth in delivering the Scriptures and therefore infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost that they could not err in what they delivered to us That which Moses was to the Jews in delivering the Law the same were the Apostles to us in delivering the Gospel So that he that heareth the Apostles heareth Christ because it was the word of Christ which they did speak and this way we hear the Apostles speak yet whilest wâ— read or hear the Scriptures which they pen'd but what is this to the present Roman Church and her unwritten Traditions 2. As it 's understood of ordinary Ministers in the Church it can only be understood conditionally He that heareth you while your doctrine agreeth with the Word of God heareth me so that faith is not a conformity to any Teachers or their doctrine but so far as their doctrine is agreeable with the Scriptures which indeed are the Rule both of their preaching and our beleeving Consonantly hereunto the Apostle saith If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesom words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6.3 c. The Scribes and Pharisees who were the Church in a Popish sence were to be heard but it was whilest they sate in Moses Chair that is whilest they preached not their own traditions and phancies but Moses doctrine Arias Montanus saith Elucid in Mat. 23. Christ bids them do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded Ex praescripto legis id est ex Cathedrâ Mosis So Origen Origen apud Lyran. Super Cathedram c. isie sermo de me est qui bona dâ—ceo contraria gero 3. The Text speaks not of the Church for particular Ministers in the Church are not the Church Now your Rhemists expound it of them in these words It is all one to despise Christ RheÌ„ Annot. on the Text. and to despise his Priests and Ministers in the Catholique Church to refuse his doctrine and theirs And indeed it must be understood of those who labour in the Word and Doctrine not of non-preaching Popes and Prelates 3. Mat. 16. you would say Mat. 18.17 which you read thus He that heareth not the Church let him be as an Heathen and a Publican Not to say any thing of your false quotation or reading a fault common throughout your Book Protestants may take notice what great cause we have to put these men into our bosoms as they expect whilest they profess we are no better then Heathens or Publicans though I am sure their usage from us hath shewed us Christians But to the Text How little it makes for your purpose the Context words themselves will shew It speaks not of Conformity of Faith to the Church but of obedience of the offending party to the admonition of the Pastors of the Church Thus Lyranus Si non aud Eccles pr ceptum praelatos contemnendo Lyr. in loc You might as well say that faith is a conformity to our selves because it 's said If he neglect to hear thee vers 15. or to two or three witnesses because it 's said If he neglect to hear them vers 17. whereby is implied that he ought to hear them Hence it might well follow that faith ought rather to be resolved upon a neighbor that is a private man then upon the Church because the offended party is first to be heard before the Church And then Sir who is guilty of the Private spirit that you anon talk of Sure your selves and not the Protestants In stead of these misapplied Scriptures for you I shall give you
Popes Legates sitting in it yet pleased not the Pope by their decree in the second Session That the Pope ought to be subject to a general Council This was also the decree of the Council of Constantinople which notwithstanding was called by John the 24. and confirmed by Martin the 5 two Popes 3. Infallibility is not subjected in the body of the faithful for it 's a clear truth which Dr Featly observed Whatsoever the Romanists say of the infallibility of the Church they resolve it at last into the Authority of the Church Indeed if we speak of the universal visible Church as comprehending all Beleevers in the world it 's not possible that all should err for then Christ should want a Church but for particular Churches it 's most evident they are subject unto error Papists profess it openly of other Churches and sometimes confess it of the Roman The Council of Trent decree to reform many things in manners and doctrine in that Church and there was great need so to do Cassander ingeniously acknowledgeth a defection from the primitive Church Cassand Cons Act. 7. p. 929. both in regard of integrity of manners and discipline and also in regard of sincerity of doctrine and further saith that this Church hath provoked her Husband multis erroribus vitiis with her many errors and vices From all this it 's most infallibly true that the Roman in none of their Considerations is infallible I will now come to examine his Arguments Pag. 12. he begins with a supposition saying Supposing it for granted that Christs knowledg of Gods revealed Truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching and teaching to the full height and perfection of a Rule of Belief to the first Christians it cannot in reason be denyed he having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches as appears by his own words Joh. 15. Joh. 20. but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians whence it follows that all matters of Belief as well other Points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit and that whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Belief In answer hereunto I will first consider the Supposition and afterwards the inferences and proofs of them There are divers things herein questionable if not simply false 1. 'T is said Christs preaching and teaching was a Rule of Belief Ans If by these acts you understand the materia circa quam the matter of his preaching viz. the Scripture or Word of God then it 's true that his teaching was the Rule of Faith i. e. that which he taught and discovered to them was the Rule of Faith but if you understand it of his transient preaching as if by these acts he propounded to them a Rule of Faith for so your words seem to import it 's false for Christ by his preaching did not propound a new Rule of Faith but did onely reveal that rule of Faith which was before laid and was contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Hence it was that Christ sent his hearers to the Scriptures John 5.39 and himselfe did preach out of the Scriptures Luk. 24.25.26 27 44. c. Luk. 4.16 and that for this end as Beda notes that he might manifest himself to be the same that spoke in the Prophets Beda apud Lyran. and that he might remove that sacrilegious conceit that there was one God of the Old another of the New Testament Yea further Thus did the Apostles after him Act. 26.22 they preached nothing but what was contained in the Law and Psalms and Prophets 2. 'T is said was a Rule of Beliefe to the first Christian◠Ans And is it not a Rule of Belief unto us who are after-Christians Had the primitive Christians one Rule of Faith and we another If there be one Faith why not one Rule of Faith to all Christians why doth the Apostle exhort the Philippians and in them all Christians to walk by the same rule In eadem regulâ fidei Phil. 3.16 Gloss interl If there were one rule doth that blessing Gal. 6.16 extend only to the Primitive Churches and not rather to all Christians who were to walk by the same rule that they walked The teaching of Christ doth not make one rule and of the Apostles another but both reflect upon and explain one and the same rule of Faith 3. Whereas you say Christs knowledg of Gods revealed truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching c. Pon might have done well to have explained what knowledg and what power this is you speak of which is sufficient to qualifie a person for propounding a rule of Faith I conceive its requisite 1. that this knowledg extend to whatsoever Faith is to belief for seeing the rule of Faith must be exact containing neither more nor less then Faith is to belief hence it will follow the Propounder of this rule must know what is the adequate object of Faith This universality of Christs knowledg is hinted in one of the Texts you mention viz. Joh. 15. All I have learned of my Father I have made known unto you Here is first an universal knowledg and then the proposal of a rule suitable to this knowledg 2. That this knowledg be most certain and infallible no teaching can be a rule of belief but that which is grounded on infallible knowledg conjectural knowledg may be a ground of opinion not of Faith Hence is that expression Joh. 19.35 He that saw it bare record and his record is true and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe Now this infallibility in the subject knowing ariseth either 1. from the Divine Nature in the person Thus the persons in the Trinity are only infallible and for this cause it is that many learned Papists do deny that our Faith is resolved into the authority of the Church and Azorius tells us that in his time it was the common opinion of your Divines that Faith was ultimately resolved into God Inter Cathol tres sunt opiniones una est asserentium primam rationem in quam fides nostra ultimò resolvitur esse Deum revelantem quae sunt fidei Deus enim est prima summa veritas quaé falli ullo modo nec fallere potest ac ratio credendi debet esse talis ac tanta ut ei falsum subesse non possit Haec opinio quam sequitur Cajetanus est communi consensu in Theol. Scholis modo recepta Azor. instit Moral parl 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. the revealer of the objects of Faith and that upon this account because he could neither deceive nor be deceived being the prime and chief Verity and the reason of Faith must be such as cannot deceive and for this reason he rejects
Tradition Hence it was that some Jesuits of Ratisbone asserted it to be an Article of Faith That Toby's dog wagged his tail and your self say page 65. All points of Faith being equally founded on Gods Revelation are fundamentall and substantiall which Revelation is by the Word or Tradition Now I conceive you will at least urge Tradition for Gods Predetermination and the Virgins impeccable or sinless Conception 2. The determination of your Church in some Councell or by some Pope Extrao Commun l. 3. tit 12. c. 2. apud Azor. part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. Bin Tom. 4. p. 743. Now it s most evident that Sixtus the Fourth did decree them Hereticks who affirmed the Virgin Mary to be conceived in sin Concil Trin. sess 5. Concil Basil sess 36. apud Bin. though I deny not but he also disallowed the preaching of her purity because of the too great zeal in the Preachers of it Upon this decree of Sixtus The Councell of Trent having declared the universality of Originall sin in regard of persons doth make a formall exception of the Virgin Mary But before either that Pope or Councell The Councell of Basil is most clear for it decreeing it to be A pious Doctrine and agreable to Ecclesiasticall worship the Catholick Faith right reason and the Holy Scriptures and that it shall not be lawfull for any one to preach or teach any thing contrary to it nor is the other point of lesser concernment than this 2. Those that hold the opinions of the Dominicans are by you counted Hereticks for the former opinion they are judged to make God the Author of sin with Florinus or being a force upon the will with Origen for these are the inferences you raise from our Doctrine of Predetermination nor are you more charitable to us in regard of the other opinion of the Virgins Conception See the above mentioned Constitutions of Sixtus the Fourth where he brands the Dominicans with Heresie now Heresie is a rejection not of a mere opinion but of a point of Faith 3. If they be onely School nicities why do your Priests so much instill at least the latter of them into simple peoples ears as a matter of Faith why do they injoyn the observation of an holy day for her immaculate Conception Why doe they indanger Christs honour by making his mother equall with him in impeccability and that by a School nicitie which if such might be well rejected Secondly you Answer It is as untrue that generall and approved Councells have contradicted one another in matters of Faith or oecumenicall Decrees they have indeed talked and discoursed contrary yea later Counsels have altered and changed Lawes and Constitutions of Government made and established by former but this only proves that Counsels admit a liberty and freedom to debate matters of Religion and that what was once good and convenient may prove afterwards circumstances varying bad and inconvenient which no way prejudiceth belief Reply 1. You speak something fearfully as if you were afraid to lie yet would not prejudice your Church by acknowledging the truth You say They have talked and discoursed contrary and that because They havâ— freedome to debate matters of Religion yet they do not contradict one another in matters of Faith Here is strange stuffe yet may well serve a credulous Papist But tell me if the determinations of former Councells be unalterable as to Religion as it must be if they be infallible How come later Councells to have a liberty to debate those matters which have formerly been determined or to discourse and talk contrary to them Is it because former Decrees are obscure or later Councels ignorant or that these later Councels meet oneâ—y to see who is the best disputant amongst them Nay rather according to truth is it not in order to the disquisition of truth and to a Decree contrary to former Decrees if they be found faulty this seems granted by a Councel which saith That the Church doth propound divers Concil Senen apud Bin. Tò 4. part 2. pag. 150. and sometimes contrary decrees It cannot be only in order to ratification of the former decree for the former Councels infallibility is sufficient for that Or if the succeeding Councels ratification were useful it ought to be given without talking and discoursing contrary meerly upon the former debate and establishment So then their talk is either vain jangling to no purpose or it tends to alteration and amendment of that which hath been formerly decreed according to Augustines speech mentioned by you That often the precedent general Councels are mended by the following But you say They have altered and changed Laws and constitutions of Governments made and established by former and a little after Councels admit a liberty to debate matters of religion and that what was once goâ—d and convenient may prove afterwards circumstances varying bad and inconvenient Reply 1. If by Constitutions of Government you understand Government it self this will not agree with what you said against Calvin That Christians generally maintained and professed that the Government of the Church was unalterable by any mortal But if you mean onely such rules as concern the Execution of Government I say the alterations made by Councels have not been only of these nor does Augustin intend such things as will appear to any that considers the place you cite for it a Book of his against the Donatists in which his main drift is to prove against them that Baptisme was but to be administred once Now whereas the Donatists objected that Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk in a Councell did determine the lawfulnesse of re-baptization Augustine answers That the Scriptures cannot be doubted of but the writings of Bishops may be reprehended by others more prudent yea Provincial Councels must give way to General and the former general Councels themselves may be amended by the latter 2. It s most evident that the Alterations of succeeding Councels have been about matters of faith I suppose these are matters of faith 1. The Popes Supremacy his universal Headship and Lordship over other Patriarcks and Councels Bellarmine calls this one main pillar of Catholick Religion and one of the chiefe Heads of your faith for this you urge Councels yet there are many Councels contradict this as Concil Carthag 3. Can. 26. Concil Nic. 1. Can. 6. Concil Constantin 3. Can. 36. Concil Basil Sess 2. Where it is decreed that the Pope ought to be obedient to the Councel which decree hath beene freely imbraced and maintained by the French Papists against the Trentists 2. Communion under one kind is decreed by your latest Councels yet Cassander tells us that Communion in both kinds was by our Lords institution Apostolical tradition publick and perpetual custome of all times and further was confirmed by the Decrees of Popes and Councels 3. Worship of Images is established by later Councels yet the Councel of Eliberis Can. 36 and the seventh General Councel of
and every thing in it and consequently that the creature doth fully represent the divine Essence and yet the Scripture tells us that none can see God and live 2. It s untrue that in seeing the divine Essence you see all its effects Aquin. 1. part 7.12 Art 8. per tot cajet ibid. Aquinas demonstrates the contrary by the example of the Angels who see the divine Essence yet are ignorant of future contingencies and the thoughts of the hearts and he further shewes that it s not necessary that he that sees a glass should see all things in the glass unless he perfectly comprehend the glass in his sight Now there is no creature that doth perfectly comprehend God Cyril excellently sets this forth of the Angels speaking of God Cyril Hieros Catech. 7. p. 169. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whose face the Angels do perpetually see in heaven but they see every one according to the measure of his own degree but the sublime splendor of the fatherly vision its lawfull onely for the Son and the Holy Ghost to behold Doe you think that the Saints see in God the thoughts of mens hearts yet many prayers are no more but the inward groans of the heart if you say they doe then according to Aquinas they arrogate that which is proper to God if not then they see not all the efects in God and you have not given us any distinction of effects visible or not visible 3. Object You say it will be opposed If Saints and Angels have not mens prayers before God proposeth them he knoweth them beforehand whence may be inferd that their intercession is needless Answ 1. Gods foresight of mens prayers maks not the intercession of Saints and Angels any way unprofitable and fruitless inasmuch as the effect intended thereby is not to better Gods understanding but to obtain from his blessed Will mercy and compassion c. Reply 1. The Objection doth not refer to Gods foresight meerly which may be from all eternitie He foreseeing all things before they were but to Gods actuall receiving of them from us and so proposing them to the Saints Now I assert that this doth make the intercession of Saints and Angels unprofitable yea no intercession For first according to Papists the reason why we look for an Intercessor is this we dare not come to God immediately hence is that Court-like instance and frequently urged of a subject who not daring to come into the presence of the King immediately presents his Petitions to some of his Courtiers and by him to the King But here forgetting your instance you first present your Petitions to the King making him your Letter carrier to his Courtiers and this say you for this end that his Courtiers may move his goodness which how rationall it is let the simplest of your Synagogue judge 2. According to your Rhemists the property of a Mediator or Intercessor is to offer up our Prayers to God Now he that offers up any thing to another doth not immediately receive his offering from him to whom he offers but from him for whom he offers To say Saints receive Prayers from God that they may offer them to God is very harsh and unscripturall language Reply 2. If our Prayers go immediately to God and then to Saints and they immediately obtain from Gods blessed Will mercy and compassion from us What room hath Christ for his intercession or how are Saints Mediatores ad Mediatorem It s difficult to set up Saints as Intercessors and not to nullifie the intercession of Christ Jesus But you urge Princes have often notice of subjects imprisonment and condemnation yet seldom give reprives of inlargements but at the intreaty of some friend or favorite Reply 1 Princes do not usually receive and deliver Petitions directed to their Favourites that thereby their favourites may move them to compassion 2. Princes often give reprieves or inlargements at the entreaty of the imprisoned or condemned 3. The Apostle tells us clearly who is that favourite that receiving our Petitions doth procure reprieves or enlargements for guiltie sinners viz. Jesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2.1 2. You answer Men are wished yea warranted to pray for one another 1 Tim. 2. notwithstanding God hath the foresight of their wants and necessities Reply 1. For shame do not thus fight with your own shadow what Protestant doubts of Gods foresight of Prayers or who asserts that Prayers are for the bettering of Gods understanding 2. When men pray one for another they have not the sight of your supercelestiall Vtopian looking-glass but being by their friends acquainted with their wants they are intreated to joyn with them in seeking Gods mercy through Jesus Christ 3. You answer Davids adulterie and guilt of blood were in the sight of God unpardoned till after a low humiliation and an hearty acknowledgement of his fault 1 King 12. Reply This being nothing to purpose shall pass unanswered till you can make it appear more materiall 5. Objection THe fifth Objection is The Roman Church entertaineth divisions and contrariety in Religion The Dominicans maintaining a Physicall predetermination the Jesuits a Morall those that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Originall sin these that she was prevented by Grace and conceived in the same And if this be not enough to infer contrarietie in Religion several Councells have contradicted each other Answ 1. Not every difference but a difference in point of Faith makes division and contrariety in Religion The Dominicans and Jesuits onely quarrell about Opinions it being not matter of belief that Gods Predestination is Physicall or Morall or that the blessed Virgin was conceived in Originall sin or grace These are meer School nicities and not at all destructive to that Vnity which Catholicks so much reverence in Religion Reply 1. You deal deceitfully with your followers and us in making your many divisions to seem few and your great ones small Are the differences in the Roman Church only two viz. about Predetermination and the Virgin Mary Whosoever reads Azorius's Moralls but especially Bellarmines Controversies shall find scarce one point of divinity wherein there is not difference amongst Papists Some have numbered 300. different Opinions of Papists out of Bellarmines Controversies and those about Points controverted between them and us Now if the differences between them and us be about Points of Faith as it seems they are else we could not be accounted Heretical and not meer Opinions their is no question but theirs are of the same nature there being no Opinion of the Church but hath some one or more Papists joyning with us in opposing it 2. You might have done well to have informed us what are Points of Faith and what Opinions for these Points you mention seem to be points of Faith For first those things that constitute a point of Faith with you agree to them As first its authority from the Word of God which you branch into Scriptrre and