Judge Is there no more likely-hood of a figurative sense in the words then there is of the being of an Accident without the Subject or of the Body of Christ to be in Heaven and on Earth and in thousands of places at once But you contend the improbability of this sense because he took the Bread and the Cup in his hand and said this is my Body and this is my Bloud Surely this makes no prejudice against us for this was necessary towards the consecrating of that Bread and that Wine otherwise there would have been a Consecration of Bread and VVine in Communi and therefore he spoke demonstratively and this demonstration makes the Subject no lesse capable of a figure then the Praedicate and what difference Behold the Lamb of God or this is the Lamb of God So in the 9. to the Hebrews and the 20. verse Moses having taken the Bloud of Calves and Goats said This is the Bloud of the Testament VVas that Bloud transubstantiated into the Bloud of Christ or when one takes his Testament may he not say this is my VVill although it be but the signe of his Will You take notice also of the different opinions there are about the sense of the words of Institution We have no cause to take it to our selves who have not such variety of conceits therein Neither can you I am sure justifie your Infallibility by your accord herein since some question whether it be transubstantiated and therefore have they a proviso of a conditionate adoration Adoro te si tu es Christus and so many amongst you differ about the manner of the change whether by production which supposeth as is noted the Body not to praeexiste and this is false or by adduction which supposeth against Transubstantiation or by a kinde of Conservative Conversion which is little else then a Contradiction in adjecto therefore answer your self How is it more clearly defined by the Church which was scarce in debate till the time of Berengarius Did the Church all that while want necessaries to Salvation But lastly you should not have pleaded Scripture for this point on your side if you will believe Scotus and your Cardinal Bellarmine who sayes that Scotus held Transubstantiation could not be clearly proved by any Text of Scripture and he himself thinks it not improbable Therefore herein you cannot in their judgement convince us by Scripture and therefore till the Church be Infallible it is no doctrine of Faith as it was not before the Lateran Council as Scotus affirmed by Bellarmins Confession in the 23. chapter of the third Book De Sacramento Eucharistia but if Transubstantiation be not declared in Scripture then our opinion negative to you is more secure and is not concluded not to be in Scripture though you or others will not professe it In the former part of your 15. Number you go over a former argument again to which the former answer may serve As for the other part of your Paragraph concerning all the points of Saint Athanasius's Creed which are not clearly delivered in Scripture and yet he that will be saved must think thus I answer Although the matter of them be not in terminis found in Scripture yet the sense of them according to aequivalence may as well as Transubstantiation when you will endevour to make it out by Scripture Secondly Although we believe what is said in his Creed yet therefore are we not bound to believe it by the Authority of the Church since he would have held it although the Church had not as he did sometimes differ from the common profession of the Church in the Consubstantiality of the Son of God In the beginning of the 16. Paragraph you say somewhat which you had said before to it we say nothing but you raise a new opposition Baptisme of Children to be necessary to their Salvation is a prime point of Belief and yet you cannot believe this prime point of Belief by any clear place of Scripture therefore you mean all necessary points are not clearly believed by Scripture therefore by the Church this must be your dissertation and your minor proposition you confirme by the Testimony of Saint Austin We Answer first to your Major by distinguishing a necessity of Baptisme in general it is necessary by necessity of precept but it is not necessary by necessity of mean to the child so as that if it be not baptized it is undoubtedly damned the former respects the Parents that they should take care of it for their children but if they do not or the child be taken away as many are before it can be done by a lawful Minister we cannot conclude it or them absolutely perished since it is not so necessary to them that were of age at the Primitive Institution Saint Mark the 16.16 Whosoever beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned not also and is not Baptized For many there were and cases might be put that there might be more which could not have Baptisme before they died as appears by your Vicarium Baptisma which the Fathers speaks of Then though we may well assure our selves that if Infants rightly Baptized die such they are certainly saved yet can we not as reasonably passe the Verdict of Damnation upon those which are not Baptized As to your assumption we also distinguish if you mean we cannot believe this Poedobaptisme by any clear place of Scripture namely in terminis terminantibus as they speak expresly we grant it but this is not enough for your purpose And if you mean it cannot be clearly believed because by consequence it cannot be proved or because it cannot be clearly beleeved since it is beleeved by consequence then we deny your assumption in both regards For whatsoever is necessarily inferred from Scripture is binding in the vertue of the principle and therefore clearly we may beleeve it Now the institution of Baptisme in general by Christ the substitution of it to circumcision since there is the same Covenant in substance to both Testaments is a sufficient Principle to infer the necessity of Baptisme of Infants besides what may be supposed by baptizing whole Families And therefore this is none of those things which are not grounded in Scripture and therefore no Object of the Church Tradition And therefore Saint Austins Testimony will come to no more then this that though they had nothing for certain alledged out of the Canonical Books in this point yet the truth of Scripture is kept when they do that which seemed good to the Catholique Church namely so far as the Catholique Church keepeth the Truth in clearing that which is not plain in Scripture Which Church the Scripture doth commend as he But is it cōmended for infallibility If not this Testimony and all your Testimonies and all your instances which you have of things not determined in Scripture but determined by the Church will doe you no good for you
support against falling and therefore Isidor Clarius and Estius doe interpret it by firmamentum not fundamentum So the Church holds forth and holds up the Truth Therefore your meaning of Foundation above ground hath neither Foundation nor ground Secondly can you conceive and say that the Church is a Foundation of Truth comparatively to Scripture Is not the Scripture the Foundation of the Church The Scripture in the substance of the Word was before the Church because the Church was built upon it then the Scripture in the substance of it was the Foundation and is now being written And that which is the first Principle of all must be the Foundation of the rest and the further we go from it the lesse security we have because we go more into discourse which is uncertain Now the first Principle is Scripture not the Church because the Church is proved by Scripture and you proved even now or would have done the authority of it by Scripture The Church may give Testimony of the Scripture but the Scripture doth not onely give Testimony of the Church but doth ground it and constitute it and distinguish it and upon it it is built then this is the Foundation The Church is built upon the Scripture not the Scripture upon the Church As the Law hath it self to Justice so hath the Scripture it self to Faith Now the Law is the Foundation of Justice not the Judge so is the Scripture the Foundation of Faith not the Church which you say is the Judge For as the Judge is built upon the Law so is the Church upon Scripture And as the Judge is to go by the Law in his proceeding and sentence otherwise he erres so is the Church to go by the Law of Scripture otherwise it doth erre And as the Law is not to be proved it being the first Principle in Justice so is not the Scripture to be proved for it is the first principle in Faith But as the sentence of the Judge may be examined by Law so may the determinations of the Church be examined by Scripture since the Judge may erre and so may the Church But first prove that it hath not erred and then you will have another work to do to prove it cannot For the Faith of a Christian immediately is resolved into that which cannot deceive him And prove that it cannot erre and therefore is the infallible Judge or if you can prove it the back way it is the infallible judge therefore cannot erre Nextly You make some perstriction of my Criticisme if it may be so called and yet not mine neither but of others also whereby the termes the Pillar and Ground of Truth is referred to the commendation of the Mystery of Godlinesse after the Hebrew fashion to give these Praefaces of respect to so grand and sublime doctrines Here you are pleased to smile as if I had forgotten that this Epistle was written in Greek not in Hebrew and also you say no Hebrew form in the world can make that sense he intends Sir Will you please to give me leave to be even with you in a smile but no I have no minde to rejoyce in any mans imperfections Soberly I reply that I do well remember in what Language it was written and therefore I make it to be an Ebraisme in our use of the word which speaks a following of the Hebrew form in some other Language And he that doth not understand that there is many of these Ebraismes in the Greek of the New Testament doth not understand so much as I would desire And therefore that which you say that no Hebrew form can make my sense is not to be answered And to follow you although the Apostle had not spoken yet of Godlilinesse or the mystery of it might he not put this form of commendation in the front of the Doctrine of Godlinesse as as also in the first Epistle to Timothy 1 Tim. 1.15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ c. Neither have you any cause to object the reading of the words in our English since the distinction of Verses is not Canonical nor yet our English so accounted by us notwithstanding we have as much reason for it to make it as good as your Latin But your Adversary sayes you say that this Title of being the Pillar and ground of Truth agrees in the first place to Scripture Yes and so I do still and have shewed it so but you say it belongeth equally to any thing that is the true Word of God and therefore agreeth to the Scriptures because God speaketh in it and by it Right hold you there Rest your self here Set up your staffe here for you can go no further unlesse you will go up to Heaven and the Church Triumphant But God also speaketh by his Church and in his Church yes unto Authority not Infallibility and therefore that which followes remaines to be proved by you that he doth give as much Infallible assistance to the Church in a Council where is the Pope have you a minde to the opinion of the French Catholiques as he gave to him who did deliver his Word in Scripture It is utterly denyed And you may see plainly hereby how the Roman Tyranny over your Conscience as they would perswade you draws you necessarily into this perill of Blasphemy for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as Infallibly by his Church as in his Word And this some Pontificians do lean towards And then those by you should be called Enthusiasts not who oppose a private Revelation to Scripture but to the Church if God speaks as infallibly by his Church then speak no more against Enthusiasmes or if you do we shall tell you the story that one was accused to Alexander for being a Pirate so then said he that was accused to Alexander I am a Pirate with one Fly-boat and you are not because you have a Navy So the private men are by you accounted Enthusiasts because they have but their own singularities for their bottom but the Church of Rome is not to be charged therewith because they have so many with them And yet it may be if Infallibility were to be determined by Votes whether it did belong to the Words of God onely or also to the Word of the Church you would go neer to lose it for all Churches hold the Scripture Infallible and you too but no Church but the Roman holds the Church to be Infallible and then also you must assume that you are the Church otherwise you would not hold it Infallible You say again it is objected that in these words rather the office of the Church is set forth then her Authority To which you say your answer is clear that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out then by saying that she is the Pillar and Ground of Truth c. But the question is whether these words
contradict that Thirdly you say I confesse that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may ground our faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered Yes but I also say that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in Scripture And Saint Peter saith That many to their perdition did misunderstand some hard places of Saint Paul So that misinterpretation of hard places may be the cause of perdition Fourthly you object Heresie and lewd life to some in whom you say we invested infallibity If I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other wayes to Heresie and bad life besides giving all scope to interpret the Scriptures as we judge fit So there be other wayes to Hell besides Drunkennesse but what doth this hinder drunkennesse from being the high way to Hell Again had not David who was a murderer and adulterer had not Salomon who was an Idolater the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing several parts of the Holy Scripture But to prevent this and all that else where you doe or can say against the Pope I in my 21. Number desired you and all to take notice of that which here you quite forget I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Council cannot erre How then doth the belief or faith of our Church I speak not of private mens private opinions invest infallibility in a person heretical or lewd Those Doctors who are of that opinion that the Pope can not erre in defining out of a general Council have other Answers to your Objection But that which you say is nothing against our faith which no man though never so little a Frenchman will say obligeth us to hold the Pope infallible in defining out of a general Council So much for this Whereas I said that we cannot have as things stand any other assurance to ground our faith upon then the Church you tell me I suppose the question Sir I did not suppose but onely propose what presently I meant to prove And where as you say that I do not well consider what I say when I say that as things stand we have no other assurance I answer That though God might have ordained otherwise yet as things stand the Church is the ground of our faith in all points speaking of the last ground on which we must stand not a Humane but a Divine ground The pillar and ground of Truth and it is the first because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God as I shall shew Numb 20. chapter 3. Neither doe we first believe the Church for the Scripture as I shall shew chapter 3. Numb 31.32 though against those who have first admitted the Scriptures for Gods Word we do prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church That I have said nothing against the practice of our Church appeareth by what I said just now shewing how the people deprave the hard places of Scripture to their own perdition 5. You charge me with abating from my first Proposition in which I said Divine Faith in all things was caused by the proposal of the Church because now I say that when by the infallible authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture Good Sir Do you not see that if I be asked why I believe in this case such a thing my first answer will be because God hath said it in the Scripture but if I be pressed further and why do you believe the Scripture to be Gods undoubted Word my last answer must be for the infallible authoritie of the Church by which God teacheth this Verity Surely the main question that serveth for the knowledge of the ground work of all our faith is to examin upon what authoritie at last all our faith doth rely when all comes to all Take then the belief of what particular points you please and examine upon what authority it cometh at last to rely and you shall ever find it to be the authoritie of God revealing by the Church 6. Now whether my adversary be indeed as he saith one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England or whether he hath shewed that Treatise of mine to be no Demonstration Let the indifferent Reader after due pondering the force of all Arguments determin Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you adde The Scripture is infallible but the Church is not therefore I must take for the ground of my Faith the Scripture For first The Scripture cannot be proved to be Gods Word without the Church be infallible as I shall shew chap. 3. Numb 20. Hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infallibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie Article of our faith That all the Scripture is the Word of God and therefore though upon her authority I believe Scripture to be most infallible yet because I ground this belief on her authoritie her authoritie is the last ground of Faith 7. And whereas in your next Number you promise such souls as have forsaken an infallible Church a happy eternitie upon this ground that those things which are necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture I pray God their souls come not to be required at your hands For this ground is most groundless in two respects First because no soul can have infallible assurance of the Scriptures being the true Word of God if the Church be not infallible and you refusing to stand on this ground make the last ground of all your faith to be I know not what kind of Light Visible to certain eyes such as yours are discovering unto them infallibly that such and such books be the infallible Word of God The vanity of which Opinion I shall shew chap. 1. Numb 20.21 22 23 24 25 26 27. Secondly It is most manifestly false That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture as I shew chapter 3. 8. In your next Paragraph I find nothing which I have not here answered onely you still force me to say I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Council cannot erre What proceeds from this authority we profess to proceed from the authoritie of the Church VVhen the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent 9. As for your complaint that your paper is not fully answered I suppose that if any thing of importance was left unanswered you will tell me of it here that I may here answer it Concerning my manner in answering of you I must tell you that St. Thomas and the chief School Divines for clarity and brevity use to proceed thus Having first
of several particular councils Hence the councils of Seleucum Tirus AriminuÌ„ Millan Smyrna came to unfortunate conclusions rather encreasing then lessening the former evils Neither were the times so altered that there appeared any great likelyhood that in those parts any better conclusion could be expected of that council to which he was called when he writ that Epistle So also Saint Basil his bosom friend writing at that time to Saint Athanasius Ep. 52. said He thought it impossible for a General Council to be assembled in those times Clear then it is that Saint Gregory spoke only of such councils as had lately been held and could be held in those daies in which the Arrians would be sure to crosse all that might be good and to make those particular meetings patronize their cause What you further speak of a private Bishop of Bitonto telling the Fathers of the council of Trent to their face of their falling with one consent from Religion to superstition from Faith unto infidelity from Christ unto Antichrist from God to Epicurus is a thing I never yet did read in any credible Historian And I dare say never any credible Historian from Christs time until that time ever could find such a saucy speech to relate in History used as yet by any modest or immodest Catholicke to the face of a Councel And can you put on a forehead to countenance such a speech not having any one example from Christs time to this day as I said So it is The Catholikes and onely the Roman Catholikes have been the men who were still imployed in upholding the authoritie of councils of Fathers and you cannot I say it again and again find an example from Christs time unto this age of any who were not known Hereticks who were carping at the authority of councils or Fathers You spoke full enough before of the Fathers I think you have not wanted much of doing your worst against councels although you said in another place In what do we oppose Councels and you would seem to acknowledge them the highest Tribunal on earth though so much be said for their vilification And when you have cried down the authority of Fathers patronized the reprochful language of this private Man against a whole council of what authority do you think this one private mans saying could be 21. Hence you see how little all this serveth for an answer of what yet is to be answered in the 21 Number of my former paper specially when I shall have added the other proofs which I have of the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to his Church Of this by and by Now you invite me to re-examin the Determinations of the council of Trent It appeareth by what I said Chap. 2. Num. 4.5.6.7 That it is fine doctrine that determinations of councils should be examined by such as I and you are Have we such assistance of the Holy Ghost as councils have Have we halfe the authority or any thing like one quarter of even the wit and learning which they have Sir Let us two set down and examine how true this is which I shall now say Either the deteâ—minations of General Councils be such as are evidently against clear Scripture or the Texts which we think they gain-say be not evident to the contrary which if they be not it would be a wonderful imprudence in me and you to think we should surer hit right upon the meaning of obscure places in Scripture then the whole council hath done But now if the places alledgeable against the councils be evidently cleare Texts do you think to perswade any pious and prudent Man that so very many and many of them so very eminent for piety and for prudence as are known to have subscribed to so many General Councils not to have been able to see that which hath been evidently set down before all their Eyes in clear Scripture God give us Humility God give us charity God have mercy upon us in the bitter day of his Iudgment if we passe so bitter a Iudgment against the whole Church representative And yet if you passe not this bitter Iudgment you will never passe this objection without being posed 22. Good Sir what mean you here to bid me say no more of this point concerning the Holy Ghost giving to his Church an assistance reaching to infallibility but you would have me now measure the infallibility of our councils or Churches by their determinations and to see how they agree with Scripture Let us not say you see your opinions by infallibility but your infallibility by your determinations set forth by your Church Remember Sir what you find in the 7 Number of this chapter where you undertake to instruct me in the right way of disputing according to which I should not stand shewing the Churches determinations to be such as should be obeyed but I should shew à priori as they say that she is infallible and that therefore her definitions are to be admitted Now when I come to do what you would have me to do you cry out say no more of this point but go now the other way cast the weight of this argument upon the other shoulder It galleth me upon this Sir by your good leave I must dwell upon this argument yet a great while The more it presseth the better it is 23. This I will do by passing to my 22. Number Of my 22th Number where first you stumble and then tread upon Luther Let him ly where you will He is no better then his Fathers I step over him and so prove this infallibility of the Church I cite Saint Paul Tim. 3.15 calling the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of Faith May not all securely in their faith rely upon the pillar of Truth May they not most groundedly ground themselves upon the ground of Truth it self You answer There is a double pillar and a double ground one principal the Scripture the other less principal and subordinate the Church But this double dealing in distinguishing helpeth you not The Church must still be a true pillar and a true ground of Truth The people believed God and Moses saith the Scripture Moses was infinitely under God yet this hindred not his being truly such a pillar of Truth as was to be relied upon securely in matters of Faith I apply all to Moses in respect of God what you apply to the Scripture in respect of the Church And yet after all this as they might rely upon Moses as a pillar of Truth so we upon the Church All true believers for two thousand years before the writing of Scripture had no other ground to stand upon but this Church the ground of Truth And therefore a ground sure enough and yet not sure enough if fallible Yea the true believers to whom Saint Paul did write these words The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth had not the whole Canon of the Scripture
infallibilitie were guiltie of heresie and bad manners and I instanced in Liberius subscribing against Athanasius So that the way your Church hath doth not free you from these crimes and therefore you do unreasonably urge against your Adversarie inconveniences of his principles which are common to yours And yet you will now complain of me because I am even with you The debate betwixt us upon this point lies thus you faulted our permission of the use of Scripture to the people as the cause or the cause without which heresie and bad manners do not arise I answered in defence of Scripture this not the cause nor the causa sine quae non of them since heresie and bad manners have been in those of your Church in whom your infalibility is placed and therefore have you no cause to take it so ill that I answered you so home All the causality you can pretend of heresie and bad manners by a free use of the Scriptures is through mis-interpretation of them is it not yea is it so then how come those who are infalible to be hereticks and bad You had best take away Scripture from all that so there may be no heresie Well it seems you now begin to bethink your self that heresie and bad life are not the properties of a free use of Scripture as we understand them quarto modo but as consequents or inseparable accidents which are in a larger sense as properties namely as omni sed non soli so I construe your last words if I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresie and bad life c. you must then allow us to tell you that you are somewhat disposed to go hence and to deduct and refute the overboiling expressions of the danger of Scripture as to the people at least as if all the heresies and bad life were to be grounded or charged upon the common liberty of reading Scripture And let me come up a little more closely to you I demand of you Whether you will or dare to say that all those who have had the free use of Scripture have interpreted it in difficult places as they judged fit and therefore were of bad life if not then is it not proprium omni And so for heresie you cannot say that every one who hath freely used Scripture hath interpreted or mis-interpreted it unto heresie for how then could he of your Church say si fides in doctos solos caderet nihil esset occuperius Deo Or did they believe without the use of Scripture by an implicit faith in the Church Did they But this implicit faith implies a contradiction in adjecto for faith supposeth knowledge of what we believe in the object though not in the reason but implicit is divided against knowledge and if you say that it knows the Church which it doth believe it will come to this that all the faith of the people shall be shrunk into one Article of the Church and no matter whether they explicitly believe God or Christ or any thing else will this prove good Divinity Or will good Divinity prove this And besides it is not implicit faith which believes the Church but explicit for they must actually believe the Roman Church to be it unto which salvation is obliged Then reading of the Scriptures is not a cause to all though not all the cause of heresie for some have got salvation by it and therefore were no hereticks unless you will say they might have salvation and be hereticks too If you will say it then why would you perswade our people that there is no salvation for us hereticks Then subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation for although all Christians but you according to your Principles are hereticks yet they may be saved because hereticks may be saved However we may have faith by reading of Scripture and if faith then we are not hereticks by Knots argumentation because he would have heresie destroy all faith But you have reason to say that other ways of heresie there may be besides being conversant in Scripture for you know that hereticks have pleaded Antiquity therefore by your Logick you should not plead it for use and settlement of faith Whereas you say Again had not David who was a Murtherer and an Adulterer had not Solomon who was an Idolater the infalible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing severall parts of the holy Scripture Sir I thank you for helping your weak Adversary for this makes for me and proves for me what I said on behalf of Scripture that heresie and badnesse were accidentall at most to the use of Scripture because those whom you account infallible were guilty thereof You prove now by other examples the possibility thereof The sense of the discourse as to badnesse of life is this If bad manners be competible to those who are accounted infallible then the mis-interpretation of Scripture by the ignorance of the people is not the cause of bad maners but verum prius and now you not denying it to be true of your Pope would confirm it by certain examples in Scripture But I hope you meane to reflect this towards the proof of infalibility to be consistent with a lewd life And therefore I answer to you that I deny not the distinction of infalibility in rebus fidei and not in point of action I deny not the distinction in the notion of it but I deny it in the application of it to the Pope I do acknowledge him in one part of it falible in the latter but you must prove him infalible in the former as David and Solomon was and we have done We are agreed in the Thesis that there may be infalibility of faith where there is lewdness of life but we differ in the Hypothesis as you intend it not that the Pope may not be nought in life but that he is not infalible in defining points of faith or manners But you would avoid the danger of my former answer therefore you say But to prevent this and all that elsewhere you can say against the Pope I in my twenty first number desired you and all to take notice of that which you here quite forget I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige us no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre How then doth the belief or faith of a Church I speake not of private mens private opinions invest infalibility in a person hereticall or bad So then let my answer be put into this forme Liberius the Pope was guilty of heresie and bad manners Liberius was according to you infalible therefore the Subject of infalibility may be an heretick and guiltie of bad manners and consequently heresie and bad life are not to be imputed to the mis-interpretation of Scripture Before you graunted me the Conclusion that heresie and bad life may come in otherwise
verba audiam facta cum non videam But if I might be so bold doth not your term force referre to the act say not to the Adverb again as if you had no mind to be put upon expressing where the infalibilitie of the Church lies determinately I suppose by your words if you were let alone you would expresse your selves in the safest way confusely and in generall that this infalibilitie is in the Church whether diffused as you say or representative or virtuall But it is very wisely determined by my Antagonist that it is in the Pope when he defines with a General Councel that if the Pope be convinced of errour it may be answered he did not define with a Councell if a Councel be deprehended of error it may be said the Pope did not confirm the decrees of the Councell And yet the needle doth not stand full North it trembles yet therefore in omnem eventum it is said when the Church diffused admitteth those definitions her consent is more apparent May some questions be asked here which may be in answer to this when you say immediately before what proceeds from this authority we profess to proceed from the Authority of the Church Does my Adversary mean that it proceeds from all the Authority of the Church The Pope with a lawful Councel hath Authority in the Church and what comes from them comes from the Authoritie of the Church objective because this Authority is for the use of the Church and comes from the Authoritie of the Church subjective because it comes from them who have Authoritie in the Church But is the Pope and Councell the adequate subject of the Authoritie of the Church If not then infalibilitie must not be rested in them without the consent of the Diffused Church Secondly If you meane the Pope and Councell agreeing as you do what becomes of the Church as long as they do disagree as the fifth Generall Councell and Pope Vigilius did Yea that Councell obtained against the Pope and is accounted by the Church Universall in the number of the Generall Councels without the Pope so that your opinion of the infalibility of the Church to consist in a Pope defining with a Councel is not sound because if it be infalible it may be infalible without the Pope since it hath vim Consilii without the Pope yea maugre the Pope Thirdly If Pope and Councel do consent what if the diffused Church will not admit these definitions what then And I think I have reason to suspect that such words are here cast out by my Adversary as may insinuate as much as if the Church diffused might dissent If they may discent then they may discent from that which is infalible or else infalibilitie must also include their consent If they may not dissent then what meane those words when the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent Me thinks somewhat is intimated here to such a purpose as if the consent of the Church diffused besides what is included in the Representative should formally concurre to the making up of the complement of infalibilitie So that the Church diffused should not conduce to these infalible Decrees by way of object or as a passive principle but also actively by its consent and this symbolizeth with Alphonsus de Castro and others of your Church who do settle this infalibilitie in the Acceptation of the Church Universall And by their opinion the Church diffused must have a freedome to dissent or no power Par. 9. You say as for your complaint that your paper is not fully answered I suppose that if any thing of importance was left unanswered you will tell me of it here that I may here answer it Ans Back reckonings are not wont to be very pleasant But now it seems too late to returne an account of my Adversaries omissions if he was my Adversary who now is under the reverence of the dead and the protection of the grave Otherwise I might say there needs not be any particular account in an universall Negative Materially little is answered and formaly lesse But a Treatise was sent me for an answer yet in satisfaction to our own cause and in respect to this demand without dis-ingenuitie I shall it may be now and then note some defects And if any should think that the fight is over when one of the parties is dead and that actio moritur cum persona I shall onely say this that this is no personal quarrel but respects the common cause of truth and yet also is it fit that I should returne an answer to a reply as it would be accounted And when this is done I have done And now comes my Adversarie to a vindication of the manner of answering me before Concerning my manner of answering you I must tell you that St. Thomas and the chief School Divines for claritie and brevitie use to proceed thus And then he gave me an account of their method which is sufficiently known To which I answer St. Thomas and the Schoolmen do use a very good method in the way of their discourse pro and con but our case is not the same For my adversary was not now upon a problem to dispute upon either part but upon an opposition to that which is defended against him They had not one particular Adversary against whom they were to direct all they said but my Antagonist had My Antagonist sent me a chalenge which was fastned upon me I answered in short he replyed I rejoined with an answer and he returned a Treatise in termino And therefore this will not serve How doth he apply his positive Divinity to my oppositive How is the Treatise applied to my distinctions Do his positives fall flat against my denials This way the Reader to be sure shall know what he saies but not what I said distinctly because the Treatise is not punctually applied to my answer Had Bellarmin produced his Adversaries Arguments no more fully than is done in that Treatise there had not been such need of being so carefull that in all Italy as Sir Edwin Sandys notes we should not finde a Bellarmin's Controversies for fear any should peruse them and not finde his Adversaries Arguments satisfactorily answered by him Therefore we may have leave to admire those words which come from the Treater that your intention in rejoining by a Treatise was to have the most important matter distinctly orderly and fully put down And by having done so I finde this great commoditie that your Answer becomes more methodicall and my reply to your Answer more clear and perspicuous and the Reader seeth still how orderly the Combate is I wonder much how this can be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Could a Reply to my answer be more methodicall than in following me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I followed the opponent Or could my Answer again be more methodicall than in following a Reply had it been proper and formall
secondly That you do not say every point is infallibly decided by Scripture because it is not at all decided Well and what to this Sir is not this a necessary point Answ And is not this in another mans expression to be a begger of the question Let them prove it to be necessary but it seems rather by them that it is not necessary For since the Scripture doth not clearly decide it as they suppose therefore the Church should because otherwise it will be wanting in things necessary where the Scripture doth not determine Now if the Church hath determined for the last three of the first six hundred years it hath determined against the Pope for Kings not as we take them to be Heads of the Church as they take the Pope to be Head but as Supreme Governours circa Sacra And so the Church for that space which is most considerable in this business is against the Popes being Head of the Church and the Scripture doth not declare it for him as my Adversaries confess for then it should declare by consequent negatively against Kings as I have said before and therefore upon the whole matter they have nothing for the Popes being Head And then again if the Scripture hath not declared for the Pope it must be declarative sufficiently for the King because no other pretends to be competitor and this is their own argumentation The Church must be infallible no other Church pretends to infallibility but theirs therefore so Government of the Church must be The Scripture speaks of Government they dare not say that the Scripture declares for the Pope therefore it must declare for Kings Or since all agreement is resolved into common Principles let this difference be mediated by these four Propositions 1. Government of the Church is necessary 2. This Government must be in the Pope or the King 3. The Scripture doth not declare for the Pope 4. The Scripture declares all Points necessary therefore it declares for the King The three first Propositions they consent to And the fourth is not yet disproved therefore This Paragraph is a supernumerary N. 42. To make short work we have no need of repetitions But he will urge again S. Matthews Gospel and again tax me for holding it no point of necessity to believe that it was S. Matthews This he saies my learned Brethren in Ratisbon durst not say Plato's rule is good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not so much who speaks as what yet this is necessary for us to believe that it was written by one inspired indefinitely But it is not equally necessary for me to believe by whom for then I cannot believe the Epistle to the Hebrews because I cannot certainly believe it was written by Saint Paul Again my learned Brethren dared not deny it to be an Article of Faith But first an Article of Faith may be taken largely for whatsoever is to be believed Now though all Articles of Faith in a special sense are to be believed yet all that is to be believed is not in the sense of the question an Article of Faith But then secondly Not to dare to deny it is not to affirm it One is a negative act the other a positive But a pari if I must be bound to their opinion why is not my Adversary bound to his learned Brethren in Ratisbon who did not state infallibilities as my Adversaries do with the necessity of a Council And why do my Adversaries differ from Bellarmin and others of their Brethren who will be scandalized by them because they dispute the Popes being Head of the Church from Scripture for they would be loth to want the Authority of the Scripture for so capital a point which concerns not many millions onely as the other and therefore it seems not absolutely necessary because then it would concern absolutely all but even all for in Bellarmin's opinion as in his Catechism a Christian is defined by union to the Church under the Pope as Head thereof As for his provoking me to believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew upon account of the Church in this number also by the Authority of S. Austin I say onely he might have been so modest as to have left this out until he had answered me in what I have said to that Testimony of Saint Austin at large before N. 43. Here he runs mightily upon a mistake for what I spoke by way of supposition he construes Categorically I said we might suppose more assistance not assurance to the Church in commending Books Canonical than in other cases He takes me to have spoken positively as if God had given infallibility to the Church in this matter though in none other and therefore we are obliged to believe the Church in this absolutely Whereas what I said comes to no more than what is usually said upon such cases dato non concesso And do not the Schoolmen dispute upon hypothetical questions As if I should say If the Pope were infallible in person what need would there be of a Council Or if my Adversaries had a minde to be contented with common Principles of Christianity we should soon have done These Consequences are upon meer suppositions So if we were bound to receive the Canonical Books from the Church we might suppose more assistance as to this than to other Points Doth this affirm that the Church had infallible Assistance herein and that we were to take the Books ultimately upon the Authority of the Church Again if we were to take the Books upon the account of the Church what is this to the Roman Church Is not the Universal Church of all times and places more credible than the Roman The whole bears them not they the whole Nay when he had abused my Supposition in p. 86. he doth acknowledge that I do not make belief of Scripture to depend upon the Authority of the Church So then my Adversary needs not to triumph and say This spoils all your onely shift c. He runs away with the line but he will be hooked as well My Adversary hath granted me that the Scripture may be said to contain all things necessary because it sendeth us to the Church where we may have them And may not I as well say to this that this spoils all may I not return him the fruit of his Discourse mutatis mutandis Will he grant that we have direction to the Church from Scripture Then the onely shift they have to avoid our Position of the Scriptures containing all things necessary is still to say that the Scripture sends us to the Church And will they now suppose this most necessary point of all points which is not clearly set down in Scripture to be admitted with infallible assent upon the onely Authority of the Scripture That we are universally to hear the Scripture in things necessary to salvation we have many pregnant places in Scripture as hath been shewed but that we are to learn this one point
orignal and then as to this it is not a translation yet 5. Then necessitie of traditions is excluded for then it could not be truely said that the Latin Bible is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners 6. Exceptions against St. Matthew's Gospel which are not in points necessarie to faith and manners do not hinder the authentickness of the Greek because the Latin is authentick as not being deficient in points necessarie to faith and manners 7. We may infer from hence thus those errours in the Latin Bible though not material to faith or manners might have been saved by the Church or not if they might have been saved then the Church may deceive our trust if they could not then it may be deceived and so we have but a fallible ground for our assent to any of her definitions and in particular for the Gospel of St. Matthew So that all his shifts fail him in this important point Surely this whole point about the belief of Scripture to be the word of God was a great shift of his for the subject should have been supposed in the dispute of the attributes The point in question was whether the Scripture doth clearly propound things necessary to Faith and manners And he hath blotted how much Paper to debate our tenure of the Scripture Yet it may be he hath gotten nothing by it nor by the Holy Fathers whom he hath somewhat to say to onely for himself The greatest part of this Paragraph comes too late And all that would seem to take away my former Answers is taken away My Answer to his Exception that Luther did not see the Apocalyps and the Epistle of Saint Iames to be canonical is yet sufficient that the negative Argument doth not conclude He replies in our case it is a strong proof I again deny the Consequence The objects have themselves equally to all but they are not equally seen surely not in this case because the Spirit of God is a free Agent Yea Saint Luke the 24.16 their eyes were holden that they could not see him Gods actings upon objects and in degrees are at his own pleasure And secondly The sense of the definitions of the Church is visible is it not If not how are we guided If so yet every one doth not see them And thirdly If Luther had such an irradiated understanding why did he not yet see and Spalatensis also the Monarchy of the Church to be of Divine Right if he had not why doth he say so The light is the same the Proposition is the same his eyes or understanding no better nor more assisted why then did not they see what he sees As to his Answer to my second Answer you see we do not follow him Luther blindly we need not return any thing but this that he mistakes me in the terme blindly he supposeth me to speak as in relation to this point about the Books denied or doubted of by him but I spoke it in general that we do not follow him with blinde obedience as the Jesuites do their General And though the Apocalyps and other Books were doubted of this doth not prejudice us no more than it doth them for the visibility of the Church and the reception of the Books Apocryphal These Books were received by them because they were worthy to be received or not but arbitrarily If the former why did not those before see them to be such If the latter then infallibility proceeds by the will and so infallibility may be on either part of the contradiction And so we have no reason to say any more if whatsoever they will say is infallible Further he chargeth us with obtruding a Canon of our own coyning for Iudge of controversies Here is two things false First That we obtrude a new Canon This not so we have the same Canon which the ancient Fathers had before the Council of Carthage But they have made a new Canon by taking in the Apocryphal and by canonizing the vulgar Latine And the other is false for we do not obtrude the Scripture as Judge of controversies in any formal sense And again he would mar the Canon all agreeing that divers Books of the true Canon be quite lost How often comes this in But first He must go less not divers Books which may import many One or two are not in common account divers If then he means by divers many Books so all do not agree If he means one or two so not divers Secondly He takes the termes the true Canon either respectively to those Divine Books which were inspired and yet never put into the Canon as it was reveiwed by S. Iohn as learned men suppose or after they were put in and acknowledged If the former he cannot say that we have not a true and just Canon as to that which is necessary And if he denies it he is a friend to Celaeus Porphyrie and Iulian. But if the latter then who lost them Surely those who had the minde to keep the reputation of the necessary use of Traditions upon this account But if Traditions be but as necessary as the Trent Council intends in those terms pari pietatis affectu why may we not think that some of these may be lost also and then where shall we finde the Iudge who is to determine of points by the tenure of Traditions or else some of their most acute and learned men have lost their insight into ground of truth Amongst us after the Church's declaration was notified concerning any book for canonical you will never finde it to be doubted of by any true Catholick Ans This argument concludes if true unity but not truth Things of Divinity are not to be measured by such a Lesbian rule And this agreement cannot prove their Canon good for unles the Canon was good the agreement was not good 2. If we should bring things of debate to no other test we should never have any determination for what is there which is not questioned by some of them Now it is all one to the Romanists whether the Canon be questioned or any thing else which the Church proposeth since they are bound to believe all alike but to the point in question Gregory was a true Catholike Gregory did not hold the Book of Machabees to be canonical after declaration by the Council of Carthage therefore that which he saies is false The major was commended to them before the assumption they may see in the 19. of his Morals the 15. Ch. Therefore they had best hold the Book of Machabees to be Canonical onely so as to be read in Churches And if so onely as Saint Ierom also held then this book is not simply canonical if otherwise that which he saies is not true and Gregory was not of their opinion So then we have Pares Aquilas pila minantia pilis Pope against Pope infallibility against infallibility And since we know which is right we must deny both
definitions of Councils to be prophetical If they be concluded by discourse then are they fallible if their conclusions be prophetical then by revelation But also these terms to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed are somewhat obscurely proposed Doth he mean it of the sense of Scripture Then where was it formerly revealed if it was clearely revealed what need of a Council to see that which others may see if not how was the sense revealed to them infallibly without a revelation If he meanes what was formerly revealed of Traditions those are beside the word of God and therefore these do not belong to interpreting of Scripture And yet also the Church hath not been so faithful in proposing these as hath been noted before Or doth he mean it of traditive interpretations as they are called but where are these to be found who gives us their number formal and material Let them then take home to their own Tents those that claim full assurance by the spirit in any point We differ from them much first because we doe not pretend any such necessity of ful assurance in every point but the Roman must otherwise what need of an infallible living Judge 2. We pretend not to any praerogative above other Churches as to the knowing the sense of Scripture they do Therefore they urge that of St. Cyprian in allusion to what St. Paul said of the Church of the Romans then for their Church now that perfidiousness cannot have accesse to them not considering besides what hath been said to it before what Nilus comments upon it that the Apostle spoke it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the time that was past not of the future And thirdly we do use meanes towards the finding out the true sense but they must have it by an extraordinary assistance of the Spirit which needs not means if they will have it by infallible assistance in places of controversie Therefore Stapleton thinks rationally that conclusions from discourse cannot be infallble and therefore he will have them to be Prophetical and that will be by revelation This number receives again my reinforcements of my answer to that Text forenamed about the Church the pillar and ground of truth as we ordinarily read it I said it respects the office of the Church according to the rule of the School-man He saies again No it respects the Authority And here he does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he offers no reason why it should be taken in his way For as to that which he urgeth here that it is called the ground of truth it is not solidly objected for the term in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is to keep firm and stable the prop the support and this fairly imports an act ex officio to keep up and uphold the truth He saies also it suits well with his sense to give order to Timothy to carry himself well that the Church might be thought to be infallible so as not to make men believe it improbable that God should assist infallibly such a Church Ans The strength of this Argument himself destroies He is afraid to make good life an Argument of infallibility because he saies it is a pitiful argument since Solomon the Idolaters was assisted with infallibility Well But let them first take my sense with the rule of the School-men and so compare them with his reason which is but a pitiful argument and then judge whether it be not best to take my account upon the place Secondly If badness of life be a prejudice to infallibility then since they cannot deny that some of their chief Pastours have been in life scandalous their infallibility will be scandalized and so cannot be such a way as that fools cannot erre as he urged before Thirdly If this satisfies the multitude that those who are to instruct them are of unblamable life yet this though it be enough ad faciendum populum yet this is not enough to judicious men who look for satisfaction upon solid principles nor can this make Faith unto the people of their infallibility but a better opinion thereof Fourthly As for Bishops and Deacons which he saies should be so qualified by the order of St Paul to and for the credit of such a Church he does not there find in St. Pauls Epistle any Cardinal Bishop or Cardinal Presbyter or Cardinal Deacon in whom the power of infallibility according to them should chieflly consist and therefore that Text doth not positively serve their turn Fiftly I had thought infallibility could have defended it self without the credit of a good life since the grace of gifts and the gift of grace are two things I said moreover what need of such instructions which St. Paul gives to Timothy if the Church were infallible since infallible assistance is immediate He answers here this is a strange consequence the Church is infallible in defending points in a general Council Ergo no man needeth instructions for his private good behaviour Ans But first the instructions he gives to Timothy were such as respected him in his place for the ordering of the Church in rebus fidei in matters of Faith as appears by the summe of Christian Doctrine which he gave him Great is the mystery of godliness c. Secondly By my Adversaries opinion there was no such need of instructions for a private life since it is a pitiful argument to derogate from infallibility by a bad life Thirdly Neither was Timothy I hope in their account a private man After this he hath two questions in the clouds Was it so for the first two thousand yeares before the Scripture was written Ans This is imediately subjoyned to the other before and therefore should seeme to be univocal to it And then we say two things first he supposeth that which is to be proved that the Church in that space was absolutely infallible 2. much less was it infallible in Councils as he now pretends which then were not as he now would have them Therefore from hence it should follow that if the Church be infallible it may be infallible without Councils and this is against him Another question is this Or do we perhaps teach this infallible assistance to be communicated to every one immediately Ans He speakes gravely as antient men were wont with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he notes in his Rhetoriques But why should he think we think he doe For the Church by him might be thought to be infallible though Timothy was not because according to him infallibility is in a representative And though Timothy might have been President of a Council yet was he not to be according to my Adversary personally infallible but as Head of the Council Yea he could not be Head of a Council then for this was according to my adversaries reserved for St. Peter And yet infallible assistance was communicated to every of
use my Liberty for your good If you had a mind to leave nothing in my reply of moment unanswered you would have followed me as a disputant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you would have opposed distinction to some incident arguments for professedly the answerer is not to dispute You would have given me answer to answer interpretation to testimonies with shewing either their impertinency or invaliditie And that excuse of yours lest you should be too long is surely too short to cover you That is not long whereof nothing can be abated as he said and that is my excuse And surely your Treatise is too long not only by your many repetitions which swell your paper but would have been too long had it been lesse it is too long by it self Who ever answered a rejoynder with a Treatise Shall I say that by your form of a Treatise it may seem that you have more mind to treat then to fight I am loath to be so bold neither doth it become my spirit to tell you that you do not stand your ground but you do not neither conclude contradictorily if your Treatise did prove that the authoritie of your Church is the ground of Faith in the Divinitie of the Scripture and in case of Controversie For your first paper spoke universally my Answer denied it and now you would prove it if you could particularly If you would conclude contradictorily to me you should have concluded in the same quantitie affirmatively to my negative This you here seem not to intend yet in other parts of your Treatise you would contend it And in the end you would arm your Treatise against me as if there were no difference betwixt Positive and Oppositive Divinity And this you doe by references but you should not have put the suit to reference without my consent So much for the Preface After the Preface you come to the Proof of the Title You mean the Title of this Paper which surely needs not to be proved because it is not delivered by way of Affirmation but of Disquisition ANd as for the Similitude you say of St. Anselme we like it very well For if the Tables be turned it doth very aptly belong to you who if you have not with a Roman contention for Masterie pulled out the Eyes of Men yet have put out the Light not allowing them the use of the Scripture you shut up the people in Darknesse and will not let them see the Sun of Righteousnesse in his own Orb of Scripture for fear it may be he should not seem now to rise but to go down in Rome and instead hereof you leave Men to walk by the Light of the Pope whom one compared to the Sun as the Emperour to the Moon Christ saith Search the Scriptures you say not yea you take away the use of all humble seeking of God for the knowledge of Truth because you have said that we must all submit our assents to the determinations of the Church So you see how your Opinion is practically impious and is disagreeable to your own directions For you say if they should seek of God they should find Onely you say we should set all passions prejudice aside with a calm humble mind beg of God to give us this grace of seeking truth Surely this Qualification of our addresse to God for the finding of Truth is very good and I would it were as well practised as delivered but let the world judge who is like to be most wanting in this Devotion and to exceed in passion and prejudice He who affirms all to be delivered infallibly by the Church or he that searcheth in Scripture particular Truths Infallibility pretended easily makes any man passionate against difference unlesse indeed he could make it good And he that is infallible is in right capacitie sure to have a necessary prejudice against different Opinions Neither since the times of the Apostles hath humilitie been usually seen to â—â—â—p companie with infallibilitie not that he who is most humble is not most likely not to erre but that he who saith he cannot erre is most likely not to be humble but as for prejudice by Education which you speak of also may I not as well retort it upon you I think in some respects it is not so applicable to me Indeed we do not inherit Religion as Lands but if when we come to abilitie of discerning which your Religion in its Principles will never let you come to we see good cause for our Religion Surely we have no reason to leave it because it was our Fathers although we doe not embrace it because it was our Fathers The relation it hath to our Ancestours hath no more moment in it then the Church may have upon you namely to be a considerable motive not to be your ultimate resolution thus for the first number of your proof 〈◊〉 that it is 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 even with you for the similitude by a saying of Tertullian in his Apologet at the end of the 9. chapter Caetiâ—â—s dâ— species facile concurrunt ut qua non vident qua sunt videre viatantur quae non â—â—nt So while you do not see what exceptions there are against you you see more see what are not exceptions against us and our way of Faith But therefore in your second Number you will prove your way by Scripture We now come to it And your Text is Esay the 35. from the fourth Verse to the ninth by parcels Say to the faint-hearted Take courage and fear not behold God himselfe will come and save you then shall the eyes of the Blind be lightned and the eares of the Deaf be opened and there shall be a path and a way and it shall be called an Holy way and this shall be unto you a direct way so that fools cannot erre by it Thus you order the Testimony To this we say 1. Whether it be intended by the Holy Ghost to respect the Primitive Church Christian mystically through the Jewish we cannot be certain but sure we may be that in the Letter it doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from captivity And therefore it may be you â—earing that this should be taken notice of do wisely leave out those passages which may seem to incline the Text to that sense and you take only that which you think is for your turn So you know who would have deceived Christ by omitting that part of Scripture which was against him although you will not allow to the people the Liberty of Scripture yet let us have all for our life in the dispute And it there be a mystical sense here yet you know the rule of Divines which is also not denyed by yours that mystical Divinity is not argumentative unlesse namely the mystical sense be expressed in Scripture which you are here to demonstrate 2. If it be understood of the Primitive Church through the Jewish as Saint Hierome indeed doth comment upon it
for your use Take it by it selfe and it will come to this that a clear place in the Gospel would perswade him to lessen his opinion of the authority of the Catholicks then he would hold clear Scripture above or against the authority of the Church then their authority is not in his judgement Infallible or else Infallible authority of the Church may be opposite to Infallible authority of the Scripture and one in his opinion of them the Scripture is more Infallible then the other the Church which is incongruous for in Infallibility there is no degree no more then in Truth And if you say that the Scripture yet may be more Infallible to him this spoyls all your cause for you say you go to Faith by the Church because that way is more plain c manifestâ— Therefore you hasten me from this passage to shew me what will follow But what do you think will follow I pray note it well their authority being weakned and shewed once fallible now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel And why so because upon the authority of these Catholicks I had believed the Gospel So you But do you see how you interpose your glosse in your Parenthesis thus their authority being once weakned and shewed once fallible Do you imagine that we can neglect or overlook this your glossall inference or opposition and shewed once fallible as if there were no authority but that which is Infallible and there were no weakning of authority but to make it fallible Authority may stand with Fallibility for we grant Authority to the Church distinguishing it from Infallibility And if you had done so you had saved many a wound which your Church hath got by that unfortunate word Infallibility as one of your own men happily confessed Neither therefore doth it follow that the authority of the Catholicks being weakned and shewed once fallible he could not at all believe the Gospel because by the authority of the Catholicks he had believed the Gospel but he could not then believe the Gospel by that inductive and motive of the authority of the Church for the first Christians believed the Apostles severally without the authority of the Church Yea if upon that consideration he could not have believed the Gospel their authority by whom he did believe it being weakned yet doth it not from hence flow necessarily that when he did believe the Gospel he did believe it upon an Infallible authority because although he could not believe the Gospel without it yet might he account it as towards belief but a condition not a cause of his Faith And this you must have or else you do not contradict Whatsoever is necessary to an effect is not the cause of it although whatsoever is a cause thereof is necessary to it Therefore that is not so which again you say that the ground of his beleef in the Gospel was their infallible authoritie as not only these but also the next words shew manifestly When will you by your proof put the infallible proposal of the Church out of question when shall we have any more then supposals of it Let us see your next words Wherefore if in the Gospel there be nothing found that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus then I will beleeve the Catholicks rather then you but if you shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle then neither will I beleeve the Catholicks nor thee Why so I will not beleeve the Catholicks because they whose Doctrine I thought infallible have lyed to me concerning the Manichaeaus But I will not beleeve thee even when thou citest clear Scripture for of this case he speaketh and why so because thou dost cite me that Scripture to which Scripture I had now beleeved upon their authority who have lyed to me So you And what now from hence can you gather more then from the former passage of the same nature unlesse you did make good another Parenthetical supposition whose Doctrine I thought infallible This is not in Saint Austin but comes from your own private Spirit And therefore if you will not be ruled by our Spirit because of the former exception to the contrary surely we have no cause to be overperswaded by your judgement without any reason for it Secondly May you not from hence take notice that what I said of Saint â—ustin that in the Testimony here he might speak as in some heat of Dispute For can we think that Saint Austin had such a soul as to say soberly and categorically that he would not beleeve clear Scripture which was cited by any one because Catholicks had told him otherwise Did Saint Austin in your conceit differ in judgement from your Aquinas or did your Aquinas differ from Saint Austin Consider then what your Aquinas saith in his Summes the first Part the first question and the eight Art Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis facta qui Canonicos libros scripserunt for our Faith doth rely upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books but not upon the revelation if any other was made to other Doctours Nay he confirms it by Saint Austin out of his 19. Epist a little after the beginning Solis enim Scripturarum libris c. For I have learned to give this honour onely to the Books of Scripture which are called Canonical as to believe most firmly that none of the Authours thereof did erre in writing any thing but others I so read that whatsoever holynesse or learning they are excellent in I do not think true therefore because they thought so or wrot so Compare then this passage with the other or the other with this and then judge whether either he did not differ from himself in his Principles or did not speak the former as a disputant Thirdly Let me note whereas you do rightly translate Saint Austin as speaking of his beleef by the Catholicks in the tense more then past you give your self occasion to think that he meant the main passage non crederem not of himself then but as before a Manichee And your argument which you produce a little after against this last answer because he speaks here of beleeuing the Acts of the Apostles and beleeving it by a necessary consequence because he hath already beleeved the other Canonical books upon the same authority of the Church doth not overthrow my answer because you say your self that this book of the Acts he did beleeve by consequence by the authority of the Church he was at first moved to beleeve the other books and therefore by consequence he did beleeve the book of the Acts because the Catholick authority did in like manner commend both Scriptures The speaking here in the present doth not derogate from my answer because the beleeving by consequence supposeth an act of beleeving antecedent Also Fourthly note that here he said the
the Catholick Church is not sufficiently pleaded for the Roman and also Infallibility is not yet asserted to the Catholick And therefore your demonstration you talk of is but a flourish and your Argument you think unanswerable is not to be answered any more because that strength which it had is taken away And I have no more to say untill you have any more to say upon this point or any you mean in difference betwixt us But yet you have not done but like a Parthian who fights flying so you dispute still ending You say you will shew how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this Saint Cyprian Ep. 3. l. 1. saith That false Faith cannot have access to the Roman Church And when you please to press this I shall shew you what little ground you are like to get in that Epistle since though he names the Roman Church as the principal Church as the chair of Peter yet he there defends his own jurisdiction against those who would ramble to Rome to have their cause heard and judged there Neither will you get any credit by those whom he speaks of and in those words you quote there is an intimation that the Romans then when he did write were not such as those were in the Apostles times Apostolo praedicante and I shall tell you why it was called the principal Church for a principle of Unitie so he from whence the Sacerdotal Unitie began and also by reflexion from the Imperial Seat And if you will object Saint Jerome's authoritie in his Comment upon the first to Timothy that he calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome the Rectour of the House of God which you say Saint Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of Truth I shall return you answer that this is not very much for other Bishops were called in ancient times Papae too and that he calleth him the Rectour of the House of God that is not much neither since every Bishop is so The Rectour of the Church in that place where he lives And this will appear to be less considerable if you will take notice that in his Comment upon the first Ep. to Tim. the third chapter upon these words A Bishop must be irreprehensible where he speaks of a Bishop in communi he sayes Aut Ecclesiae Princeps non erit so a Bishop in general with him is a Prince of the Church and also you know what opinion he had betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Read to this purpose his Epistle to Evagrius If you come upon me again with Saint Jerome to Damasus in an Epistle you may tell me what Epistle for he wrote more then one and his Title in some is as is set down plainly Hieronimus Damaso Surely Popes then had not that state or else Saint Jerom had little reverence towards him And you may see also how the Pope writes to him to resolve questions And is this any sign of the Popes Infallibilitie Well but you say in that Epistle you will tell me of to Damasus he saith To your Holyness that is To the Chair of Peter I am joyned in Communion Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built he that gathereth not with thee scattereth So you And shall I give you answer to this now then I may tell you that this doth but magnifie the honour of his own Commuion and yet not much neither if you will observe what he saith in his Comment upon Amos the 6. chapter Petra Christus est qui donavit Apostolis suis ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur Tu es Petrus c. Then Peter is not in his Opinion the onely Rock you see Moreover so the Fathers you say in the Council of Chalcedon at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. And what can you ever make of this that they did say so No more then thus much that the Successour of St. Peter spoke Doth this signifie that all the Personal pripriviledges which Saint Peter had Pope Leo had then there needed but him to determin all the Controversies Yea according to Saint Jerom before if he had had all those priviledges which Saint Peter had yet the Church should not be built upon him onely for the other Apostles were Rocks too Yea and is he Christs Successour also If he be not then that which you would fain arrogate to him belongs onely to Christ to be Head of the Universal Church To cut short you remit me to Statleton and Bellarmin who both shew most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief causes The places you say you will alledge though for the present you refer me to them What do you mean Sir to put me off to those adversaries or in the interim to satisfie me until you have ranged them into another discourse I need not send you to our men who have withstood those Champions foot to foot Junctusque Viro Vir. Saint Cyprian in the place before makes an exception against this supreme Tribunal for Appeals and the African Churches After this you seem to threaten me with further Demonstrations of particulars material to your cause Untill which time it becomes me in civilitie to wait and not to take the word out of your mouth or your work out of your hand I shall let you rise that you may have more strength for the next assault I could leave here but that our late Feast may hint you to think of the contest betwixt the Roman and other Churches about the observavation of Easter And were those Hereticks or Schismaticks that would not stand to the Roman determination herein And as for your earnest demand to know but the name of one of the Pastours Doctors or Preachers in those last thousand Ages Years which preceeded Luther I may conceive my self obliged then to give you some account hereof when you shall tell me whoever of all the Bishops of Rome in a vast insolency took upon him the Empire of the whole Church under the Title of Universal Bishop before Boniface the Third took it from Phocas his Donation Untill Gregorie's time inclusively there was no such Usurpation and you know what Gregorie said of John of Constantinople for his pretending to it that whosoever did made himself the forerunner of Antichrist But if I would answer the answer would be easie and it is ready you have it alreadie in a Testimonie out of Tertullian in his Prescriptions it may be you took no notice of it then nor did I urge it to this purpose by way of Application to our Church thus That which we are the Scriptures were from the beginning we are of them before it was otherwise before they were corrupted by you Then we are as ancient as may be for our Doctrine and Sacraments they are found in the Records of Scripture And if Campian says All the Fathers were his and yours we may say the Apostles are ours Nay the Fathers
Gods wise Dispensations to his Church then when there was no Word written he would provide that that whereby the Church should be ruled should be extraordinarily conveyed and preserved but now when there is a Word written which is a most sufficient ground of Faith as you confesse there is no such cause of any word beside it If the Scripture be a Rule of faith as you do liberally grant then this is now a rule not onely inclusively but exclusively for otherwise it is not as large as that which is to be ruled and then they will not agree in the nature of Relatives and so it will not be a Rule of faith and manners For indeed the propertie of a Rule doth not only exclude lesse but also more It speaks against adding to it as a Rule of faith and manners necessarie in themselves as well as against the negative of not ordering them by it But then again your former reasoning is inconcludent because God revealed himself to his Church severally before he revealed himself by his Church And therefore this was not the way universally holding namely by the Church even before the Scripture was written And therefore much lesse doth it now bind when the Word of God is written Shew the like inspirations to the Church as the Prophets had by some infallible way and then we shall say that thus saith the Lord absolutely undisputedly without possibilitie of contradiction by the mouth of the Church in whatsoever it pleaseth to assert for the truth of God to be believed equally to Scripture and then a Council is to be believed without Scripture as the Nicene you mean was not believed or to be believed without for it did determine by it and by that Text I named I and my Father are one which Saint Athanasius doth apply to that question foure times in that Epistle you named And if you can prove that Saint Peters successours as you imagine had that transient gift of immediate Revelation as Saint Peter had then ye might say Peter spake by the mouth of Leo as infallibly as God spake by his Then the Arrians had as good a plea for their opinion as Athanasius had for they urged the Council of Ariminum and more Councils as Athanasius mentions in the same Epistle if what is said by the Church must be true then Athanasius must have changed his Opinion Or if you will have alwayes the Pope to be put into the authoritie of the Church for an infallible definition binding the consciences of all Christians to believe it as Gospel then must we believe that what he defines is Infallibly true What because he cannot erre No more then those fourtie Popes which Bellarmin speaks of in his fourth Book De Rom. Pontif. from the 8. chapter to the 15. who have been as he said accused of errour and some whereof none can say that all the distinctions and provisions which have been devised for this purpose can possibly justifie Pope Zephyrine a Montanist then he erred if not a Montanist then Tertullian is not to be believed Liberius as before an Arrian so Athanasius so Jerome so Damasus of him and Damasus could not erre as you hold yet an Arrian is surely in errour is he not Honorius was erroneous too and he spoken of in a former paper he a Monothelite as Melchior Canus saith some Catholicks hold and he proves it by Synods the sixth the seventh the eighth and he proves it by Epistles of Popes if all there be deceived how shall we believe authoritie of man As for Gregory the Third Bellarmin in the 12. chapter of that book doth openly say Vel certe Pontificem ex ignorantia lapsum esse quod posse Pontificibus accidere non negamus So he Then do you reconcile errour by ignorance with Infallibility How is he like to be Infallible in all his definitions when he was ignorant in the Gospel and therefore gave a Dispensation to a man to take another wife if the former had a disease that made her not able for the conjugal debt And Alphonsus de Castro in his 1. book 4. chapter hath this passage Omnis enim Homo errare potest in fide etiam si Papa sit Nam de Liberio à Papa constat fuisse Arrianum Et Anasterium Papam fuvisse Nestorianis qui Historias legerit non dubitat and a little after Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent qui fit ut sacras Literas interpretari possent And how then shall we by your Head of the Church or any other severally or together know the undoubted sense of Scripture infallibly But many necessary places of Scripture do not as you imagin need a Judge or not infallible All things also necessary to be believed are set down in Scripture and the contrary you have not shewed and therefore is there no need of an infallible Judge for the former or tradition for the latter as I have shewed Neverthelesse you proceed thus The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her authoritie to be our ordinary cause of Faith So you Answer As you suppose much for your advantage without colour of reason so you confound much without distinction First the term Revelation hath two respects one to the Agent and so it refers to the act and manner thereof another to the matter of that which is revealed that is the object The Revelation of God taking it passively for the object the matter which is revealed comes to us by the Church because the Word written ordinarily comes to us by the Church But taking Revelation of God actively with respect to the manner to bear your sense that God doth reveal himself infallibly by the Church either in the case of Canonical books or of doubts about the sense of Scripture so it doth not come by the Church and therefore is it not the ordinary cause of Faith which must rely upon infallible veritie as Aquinas speaks in his first part first question eight answer and therefore as before doth rely upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets which wrote the Canonical books and not then upon the Church who was bound to receive these Books and to communicate them So that the Church is concluded to be as an instrument only or a motive of this faith an instrument by its office and a motive by its authority And as for declaring undoubtedly the sense of Scripture So is there not any necessity of a Judge infallible which you would have the Church to be Secondly you suppose that which is not to be supposed that by my words since in those cases the revelation of God comes to us by the Church I must grant her authority to be the ordinary cause of faith and you say also that by my words in this place I must grant so Surely you here do commit
to the Iewes Ninthly you ask if the Pope and Council do differ at any time about some question what shall be defined I answer nothing shall be defined because this essential hinderance manifesteth no definition of such a particular question to it at that time necessary for the preservation of the Church for if this depended upon such a present definition the Holy Ghost whom you still forget would not forget to inspire the parties requisite to do their duties Tenthly you ask how my opinion stands with theirs who affirm the government of the Church to be Monarchicall by Christs institution I answer our government in England was Monarchical this last five hundred years and yet our Monarchs could not do all things without a Parliament Again those who make the Pope sufficiently assisted to define all alone cannot possibly deny what I say to wit that he is sufficiently assisted when he defineth with a Councel Eleventhly you ask How many general Councells have been opposite to one another I answer Not so much as one You ask again in which or with which did he not erre I answer he neither erred in or with any In the Nicene he erred not as you will grant nor in the three next General Councels as your Church of England grants He subscribed not in the Councel of Ariminum how then did he erre in it yea because he subscribed not that Councel is never accounted lawful by any but Arrians or if your English Church accounted that a lawful Councel they must admit that whilest they admit the first foure Councels So that I am amazed to see a learned man four or five times object the contrariety of the Councel of Ariminum to the Councel of Nice to prove from thence that two lawful general Councels can be opposite to one another you knowing well that this Councel of Ariminum was no lawful Councel the cheif Bishop and head of the Church not subscribing in it Tell mee I pray if by all your great reading you can find one single Holy Father who did ever censure any one general Councel of doctrine in any one point either false or opposite to any former lawful general Councel In what age then live we which licenseth every Mechanical fellow freely to tax the Councels of all ages of errours against Scripture This is the fruit of crying out in what Councel or with what Councel did not the Pope erre Twelfthly you ask me I pray see my 12. Number above fine did ever any of the ancient councels determine of their own infallibility I answer the ancientest councel of all said Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us Could any thing fallible seem good to the Holy Ghost Or to a council lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost as all lawful councils were ever supposed by themselves to be and upon this ground they ever assumed an authority sufficient not only to be securely followed by the whole Church in their definitions but denounced an Anathema to the rejectors of their definitions which had been wickedly done if there might have been errours in faith The most bloudy persecution of tyrants could not have been halfe so pernitious to the Church as it was thus to be taught and compelled by the unanimous authority of Christendome to embrace that as Catholick doctrine which is an errour in faith And surely a practice so Universal so frequent and yet so pernitious would have been cried out upon over and over again by the most zealous and learned ancient Fathers who notwithstanding never opened their mouthes against this proceding of councils which could not be justifiable For this proceeding of setling a court of so great authority and an everlasting Court to be called in matters of greatest moment until the end of the world so to teach the world in all ages the Catholick truth in greatest points if in place of this truth errors against faith could have been perpetually obtruded even to the whole world and that with the greatest authority in the world and this under pain of being cut off from the body of Christ imagin if you can a thing more pernitious then this And yet this was the proceeding of all antiquity if the Church were fallible as you say Thirtenthly you ask me what I think of Nazianzens opinion about councels in his Ep. to Procopius the 12 as you say but I find it in the 42. Sir I think if what you have said against the proof of any point out of the General consent of Fathers be true no single proof brought from some one of them can have any force out of your mouth what force soever it might have had out of a Mouth used to speak otherwise of them But you are pressing asking shall I tell you yes Sir tell me Yet let me tell you that what he saith will be nothing to the purpose unles he can be shewed to speak of a lawful free General Councel called and directed by the chiefe Pastor of the Church presiding in it now Sir tell me doth he speak of such a councel His words are I am thus affected as to shun all meetings of Bishops if I must speak the truth for I never saw any good end of a Synod nor that had an end of evils more then an addition Sir you much wrong this grave Father if you think he speaketh of such councils as I now mentioned Before his speaking these words there had been but one such council to wit that of Nice Let us hear from himself his opinion of this one councel out of those Treatises which goe just before his Epistles which you might have read as well as them In the first of these Treatises being asked the most certain doctrine of faith He answereth that it is that which was promulgated by the Holy Fathers at Nice that he never did prefer nor was able to prefer any thing before it so He Tract 50. And in his next Treatise he explicates this faith at large And in the end he saith he doth imbrace the treatise of this council to the uttermost power of his mind knowing it opposed with invincible verity against all Hereticks and in his Orations to Saint Athanasius he sayeth The Fathers of this council were gathered by the Holy Ghost Saint Gregory then who speaketh thus had the same spirit that the other Saint Gregory the great who said I doe professe my selfe to reverence the first fower councils as I reverence the fower bookes of the Gospel And in this manner do I reverence the fift council Whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anathema l. 1 Epistol Ep. prope finem He then who thus reverenced lawful general councils did not doubtles speak the former words concerning them But did he perhaps speak them of lawful particular Councils No how then It was hard fortune to live in a time in which the Arrians had so great power that they disturbed the lawful proceedings
25th and 26th Number And so together with them I must let passe even that maine and convincing place of St. Austin this supposed I have ended all which belongeth to this Chapter The fifth Chapter The Church which is our Judge and Infallible is the Roman Church ALL that I am to prove here is Of my 27th Numb that upon Supposition that it is now made good that the Church is our judge in all Controversies and also that it is made good that she is infallible that all this can be verified of no other Church then the Roman Whence it followeth that whosoever will say any thing against that which I did undertake to prove in this part of my discourse must argue against me not by denying some Church to be judge of Controversies and infallible but admitting that for truth he must prove that I without reason claim this right of judicature and this infallibility for the Roman Church and onely for the Roman still understanding by the Roman Church all Churches which submit themselves to the Bishop of Rome as to their supreme Pastor 2 That then which remaineth here to be proved I did prove and still do prove thus the Protestant Church and all other Churches different from the Roman do judge themselves acknowledge themselves declare and professe themselves to be fallible and that according to infallible Scripture If then any of these Churches be infallible in what they judge and declare for truth grounded in Scripture they are infallible in this their judging and delaring themselves to be fallible Therefore infallibly they are fallible Therefore upon supposition that it hath been formerly proved that some Church is judge of Controversies and Infallible and it being by the former argument demonstratively proved that neither the Protestant Church nor any Church different from the Roman can be judge of Controversies and infallible it evidently followes that only the Roman Church is this judge and is infallible as she teacheth her selfe to be Here you exclaim at my abusing others by ratiocinations which notwithstanding I confidently say you could not nor cannot solve Therefore prehaps you are pleased to wonder and then gibe at my argument as if I only argued thus The Roman Church claimeth infallibility therefore by claiming of it she hath right to it This argument you may freely scoff at it is nothing like mine And yet in undoing this fond argument you only busie your selfe and say nothing to that which I pressed and still presse that the Church which is apointed by God for infallible judge of Controversies cannot possible be any of those Churches which teach themselves not to be this infallible judge It had bin very easie to have understood this right and not to make me say that only laying claim to infallibility is a sufficient proof of infallibility It is a very different thing to say He that must be a Minister must be a Man and not a Woman and to say such an one must needs be a Minister because he is a man and not a Woman So it is one thing to say the Church which is the infallible judge must be a Church judging and teaching her selfe to be infallible and cannot be a Church which judgeth and teaches her selfe fallible And another thing to say that that Church is infallibly judge which teacheth her selfe to be so This I said not but I said that Church that must be infallible must not want this condition and therefore no Church teaching her selfe even according to Scripture to be fallible can truly be this infallible judge Against my argument truly related you have not one word without you think you have answered me by saying that no Church of Christ is infallible and therefore not the Roman But Sir did not you alwayes hitherto still importunely call upon me to prove that even upon supposition that the Church was our judge and Infallible that these great prerogatives belonged to the Church of Rome You bid me still prove this even standing upon the supposition that some Church was judge and infallible Is it then any thing like a Scholar like answer to return no other answer to my argument but by now saying the supposition is not true the truth of which though allowed you contended to be nothing to my purpose If you will grant me that if any Church be judge of Controversies and infallible this is our Church I have done Neither intend I any thing else in this chapter 3 You bring an argument to prove our Church fallible because either it erred in admitting or in rejecting the Millenary opinion before admitted Sir I call upon you to prove that ever our infallible Judge that is the supreme Pastor of the Church defining with the Church assembled in a Council did admit of the Millinary opinion If this be not done you prove not our Iudge to be fallible and this I am sure can never be proved Yea it cannot be proved that the Church diffused or Universal did at any one age unanimously admit of this doctrine for a point of faith For when this opinion began to get much ground divers of the Fathers did oppose it Even S. Justin Dialogo cum Triphone circa medium whom yours use so commonly to alledge for this opinion in plain words telleth you Multos qui purae piaeque sunt Christianorum sententia hoc non agnoscere That many note the word many who are of a pure and pious Christian opinion do not acknowledge this And your own learned Doctor Ha in bis view of c. Page 87. 88 89. doth prove the weaknes of that place in St. Iustin not to conclude any thing against Catholike Tradition Nicephorus will tell you L. 3. C. 21. that Papias Bishop of Hierapolis was the first author of this opinion The traditions of the Church have no first authors but the Apostles Of my 28th Number Wherefore by all you have hitherto said my Argument remaineth unanswered and is really unanswerable the supposition being admitted upon which it is spoken For tell me whether any Church which teacheth her self to be fallible can be truely infallible If any such Church can be infallible and all Churches be such but the Roman then Christ can have no Church upon Earth to be our infallible Judge but the Roman Wherefore no tollerable Answer being yet given to this argument I will be as good as my word when I said in this Number That this being a demonstration I should hold my self bound to say no more until this argument were answered Here then I end yet when you shall have solved this argument I shal be ready to make good my promise concerning what I said I could and would shew of the Roman Church to soon as I should see this argument answered Petrae durities nulli magis quà m ferienti notae FINIS An Answer to your last Paper TItulus Libri saepe legendus est as the Rule is the Title of a Book is often to be read
put in such words as I knew how to answer and leaved out his true words I altered no words but expounded him in them as I had reason For if every one might be left free without such a Judge to what he judged best this freedome would be simple or morall If simple then it would be without a fault and if morall it would be without a fault but now he denies that he meant a morall freedome Yet is it best for him to understand such a freedome according to his principles for if we have not a morall freedome without a fault to believe what we judge best then have we lesse reason of giving undisputed assent to an externall Judge since we are awed and commanded under peril of a fault to take heed what we do believe And therefore cannot we believe this Judge with blind obedience because it seems now we may not believe what we will but we must see good reason for what we do believe And good reason it is that good reason should exclude blind obedience And indeed his consequence is false in terminis for we have not a simple freedome to believe what we will as I said because the understanding naturally assents to truth apparent But this he takes no notice of as if I had said no such thing How much of my words he takes away privatively which must inferre a variation of my sense may be gathered by compare of my copy with his rehersall and it appears that negatively he hath taken away a great part of my words for he saies to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so his argument is null and his vindication nullified Onely I must also note that he did not well weigh his own consequence if every man were left free to hold what he judged best we should have as many Religions as private judgements for in principles of Religion we are not like to differ if we believe the Scripture and particular Controversies which you direct your discourse to if you speak ad idem if not you are more to be blamed do not make different Religions because then you must have different Religions amongst your selves In the begining of this number my Adversary would faine take me tripping or enterfearing upon my own words by a consequence Num. 4. because as he thinks I take away all meanes of regulating our judgement and yet say we should not follow our own judgement of discretion without meanes of regulating our judgement Ans His reason may well be put into this forme he that taketh away all infallible means takes away all means able to produce an infallible assent but I take away all infallible means Then I deny his assumption I do not deny all infallible meanes I do not deny all meanes because I deny some to be infallible and I do not deny all infallible means because I deny some that he thinks infallible in both he would impose upon me the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a particulari All means are not infallible and there may be and is other infallible meanes besides those which he supposeth and I deny The Scripture is an infallible mean to hold to this I deny the infallibilitie of Councils And then again secondly I deny a necessity of infallible assent to all points of question either part of the contradiction may consist with salvation For corroboration of his opinion about the infallibilitie of Councils he brings in afterward St. Gregory the Great 's saying I do professe my self to reverence the first four Councils as I reverence the four books of the Gospell And in like manner I do receive the fifth Council whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anathema Ans First we do not think the judgement of St. Gregory to be greater than the judgement of the four Councils if we do not think them infallible we have no cause or reason to be urged with one Gregory Secondly we also reverence the learning of that Gregory as he reverenceth the books of the Gospell if the as be taken in similitude not proportion in the quality not equality Thirdly if the opinion of St. Gregory should prevaile with me why doth not the Authority of the Fathers whom I produced for our cause and the answers I gave to his Authorities before prevaile with him Testem quem quis inducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se Fourthly let us marke his own words And I also receive the fifth Councill in like manner Now the fifth Council was that of Constantinople wherein Vigilius was condemned in his defence of the three Chapters And the Council proceeded without his consent yea and against his mind So that if St. Gregory's authoritie were authentick the cause were spoiled for so infallibilitie should not be stated in a Council with the Popes confirmation Fifthly oppose and confront Gregory with Gregory Nazianzen with the Roman and which of them shall we believe for Councils Neither doth the whole machin of our Religion tople and tumble to the ground upon my former principle as he imagined though he would presse me more strongly to shew upon what Authoritie I take Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God This by the way should not have been brought into question with us since we give more reverence to the Scriptures than they do and therefore are like to have a firmer faith in it to be the word of God than they The main design of my Adversary at first I suppose was to debate the faith of particular points the Scripture being supposed to be the word of God although not supposed by him to be the onely rule But therefore let me returne his own words changing the tables that the whole machin of his Religion doth tople and tumble to the ground upon his ground by pressing him to shew by what authority he takes Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God before he hath proved the infallibilitie of the Church His reason follows because there cannot be a more groundless ground upon which you by rejecting the infallible authority of the Church are forced to build your whole religion to wit that you by meer reading of Scripture can by its light as you discover the sun by its light discover it so manifestly to be the undoubted word of God that this discovery sufficeth to ground your infallible assent to that verity Ans First he is not surely right in this that I am forced by rejecting his way of believing Scripture to this way If he be then I am right in the choice of my principle upon my refusal of his but Mr. Chillingworth whom he blames me for differing from in this point does find as it may seem and as he himself professeth a middle way of grounding faith in the Scripture to be the word of God namely by the authoritie of universall Tradition which as any can distinguish from this way so he doth distinguish from the Pontifician
blessing may be like to pitch upon that true sense of Scripture which may determine the judgement unto certain assent As by the conflict of hard things sparkes of fire do break out so by the industrious discussion of opinions truth may appear eminently But we cannot conclude the definitions intuitively and ipso facto infallible And why should we be obliged to stand to their declaration of truth as if they did also make it to be truth And why should we stand to their Conclusions when their discourse is fallible unlesse they go by Scripture And if they by Scripture examine opinions why should not we by Scripture examine their definitions as to our selves Which should be last in the determination Council or Scripture when Councils begin by it and determine with it Therefore I do not make them in no sense finall or none That which follows Now surely it is cleare c. unto the end of the number how little strength of reason hath it This in effect was answered immediately before My Adversary does us right in confessing our acknowledgement of the first four Generall Councils And also may we confesse that we think they thought they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define and finally to determine those Controversies but what then 1. What if they thought so We have liberty by our principles to think that inconcludent because we hold them not infallible in their judgement Not because they thought they had such power therefore they had it unlesse we should hold them infallible as we do not Neither is this thought of ours that they might think amiss of such power to be in them any prejudice to our acknowledgement of those first four General Councils because this opinion of theirs is no part of their determinations Secondly we distinguish All plenitude of power is taken either reduplicatively or specificatively for all that power which belongs to the whole Church the former if their opinion of themselves were infallible would serve his turne but we deny that they thought they had all power so and if they did think so we think they did not think right the latter power they might think they had and not think amisse but this serves not the turn for all authority of the Church doth not bind us to receive the definitions thereof so as to sink all examination of the truth thereof by Scripture Have not other courts a plenitude of power to hear and determine causes and yet are sometimes defective in point of law Their fallibility doth not proceed from want of power or authoritie but from want of judgement or will to give a right sentence And yet their censures also proceed And therefore the excommunications which my Adversary objects to me may neither import their faith of their infallibilitie nor yet wrong to all such as should gainsay what they had defined and determined if error and falsitie and contradiction to Scripture could be found in their definitions and determinations for first it is not fallibilitie of sentence that doth the wrong but falsity either by ignorance and so ignorantia in Judice reputatur pro dolo or else by wilfulnesse which formally makes the injurie because intended Secondly the excommunications proceed against the person for an outward act of obstinacie and not for a dissent of judgment for cogitationis poenam in nostro foro nemo luit so then there is no wrong to him that gainsays by excommunication for that simply he might keep his judgment And also thirdly the Judge though he judgeth not well yet may do well if he judgeth with competent knowledge and due integrity and therefore is it no injury if he does his best since God hath not thought fit on the behalfe of publick peace to disannull humane Judicatures for humane infirmities His Answer to my instance of the Bereans who searched the Scripture daily to see whether that which St. Paul said was true my Adversary doth referre to another Chapter We stay his leisure Whereas you adde fourthly Num. 6. that the decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto peace though their judgement cannot claime an undisputed assent yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference you teach by words what the deed of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid To this it is readily answered that Reformers may be glorious as to the generall effect though it 's possible for them to be extravagant in modo Sober businesses may be managed with too much heate Secondly whereas he supposeth that our glorious Reformers did notoriously gainsay the whole Church I deny it and if they did not gainesay the whole Church it doth not come home to his purpose for he is upon the authority of the whole Church They did gainsay the Roman Church but not the whole Church That which St. Jerom said in his Epistle to Evagrius is yet for our use si authoritas queritur orbis major est urbe if authority be lookt after the world is greater than a City which was also spoken in application to Rome And put case there were no sort of Christians that did not professe obedience to the Roman Church when those glorious Reformers did first appeare yet it cannot be rationally said by the Romanist that they did gainsay the whole Church because the Romanist doth take the root of his Church from the primitive times which those Reformers did not gainsay So then as we deny to them that they were all the whole Church when the Reformers did begin so if they had it would be nothing as to the gainsaying of the whole Church because the whole Church in their sence doth include all times and specially the primitive which they did not contradict And surely if the Romanist proves his Church by conformitie to the Primitive otherwise he hath the lesse reason for himself then must he interpretatively grant that there is more authority of the Primitive Church than of that present Roman And so then if the Reformers gainsaid not the primitive they gainsaid not the Catholick in the best part of it for time and that also which the present Roman doth most as they say depend upon Thirdly therefore we do not take our Religion from those Reformers as being worne into their words and therefore we do not impropriate Christianity by any singular persons we might take hints from them to consider those Doctrines which they preached and conferring them with Antiquity and Scripture we believe them to be Apostolicall and so is our Church by Tertullian's rule in his book of Prescriptions ch 32. In eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae those Churches that conspire in the faith are not lesse accounted Apostolical for the consanguinity of Doctrine Fourthly those Reformers even according to my Adversaries Principles did not oppose themselves to the authoritie of the whole Church because according to
besides how many may dissemble what they see Who so blinde as he that will not see If the Chinites say they onely themselves see with both eyes those of Europe with one eye and the rest of the world with neither surely those of Europe who will not see are blinde of both eyes The Council of Trent according to them an Oecumenicall Council if they could see better things not cleare why did they not in all points declare first what was to be held and then what was to be anathametized And if they were more like to see what is cleare how came they to abandon the use of the cup Nay how came they to establish a transubstantiation seing our Saviour after consecration said plainly St. Mark the 14. the 25. I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine Was his blood the fruit of the Vine But sixthly to make use of his disjunction places are either cleare or not namely places of Scripture if not cleare no absosolute necessity of a generall Council so as no salvation to be had without clearing the difficulty if clear what need then of a Council we may be saved without some knowledge we cannot believe without infallibility Seventhly let them reconcile this necessity of a Council to the sayings of Paul the fourth who said he had absolute authority that for himself he had no need of instruction because he knew Christ did command that he had no need of a Council for he himself was above all that he could remedie all inconveniences by his own authority as is said of him in the History of Trent the fifth book And therefore my Adversary or the Pope is out All he saies here also for Councils makes no more than a morall assurance which how much it is lesse than the certainty of faith Mr. Knot will tell Indeed he says Again I may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error as I shall shew chap. 4. Yes surely if this could be proved there were no more to be said this principle will beat down to the ground all opposition which an humble soule can make We confesse it when it is proved But surely this is as much in question as any thing else Untill the supposition be grown into a proof we have then yet but prudentiall Arguments to faith And yet we say secondly if he would have been so wise as to have stated it with a judicious moderation thus that we may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error namely as to destroy the foundation that might have been better endured but he hath granted that this will not serve his purpose as Mr. Knot notes he must have the Church secure from any error These Catholicks as they call themselves cannot speake under the forme of universality which is more easily contradicted And we suspend our assent untill the demonstration comes We may not nor ought to know this We ought not for we cannot We cannot but by Scripture For if they say we may know it by the Church it is the question Neither doth he prove our opposition of Councils in their most fundamentall ground upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to sit as Judges c. Num. 8. For first it doth not appeare that all Councils have supposed themselves to sit as Judges with full commission to determine securely all controversies if the terme security be taken securely from all error And if they have not so defined it that they do so sit as Judges or sit as Judges so how shall we according to my Adversaries principles believe it since we are to fetch all truth from the Church in a Council And secondly if all Councils did establish it a Principle we yet expect a reason hereof since neither Pope nor Council have absolute authority nor both to together to bind our belief Yea thirdly the Council of Nice did sit upon as good ground as any other Council but the Council of Nice did examine all things by Scripture so in the History of the Nicene Council prefixed in a Vatican Edition it is said Rebus itaque in utriusque partem jactatis et ad certam Divinarum Scripturarum normam perpensis communi omnium suffragio Arrius et Eusebius damnantur Things being discussed on both sides and weighed and examined according to the certain rule of Divine Scriptures by common consent Arrius and Eusebius are condemned Therefore are not we to look for a Dictatorian sentence but a rationall determination out of Scripture and if we finde this this doth oblige all Christians to conforme to their definitions But fourthly we deny that we are so obliged by such censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven We are not obliged by them neither in themselves nor because they were so held nay also we deny that they were so held to be ratified in Heaven unlesse with this limitation clave non errante Yea again these do not oblige us to conforme our judgement their power respects the outward act Yea again if so Honorius was rightly condemned in the sixth Generall Council therefore was an Heretick yea and Pope Vigelius was an errant Heretick for defending the three chap. against the fifth Councill And the Romanists are bound to think the Condemnation just or the Council to be null And yet that Council thought it self sufficient in authority without and against the Pope and therefore they all differed from my Adversary who saies the Council does not bind without the Popes confirmation He saies further others will tell you divers other opinions you have with Councils But if he would have had me answer for my self he must have told me the particulars Generalia non pungunt and they make no action To distinguish infallibility from their authority is no opposition untill infallibility be infallibly made good And even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils when you charge them with speaking contradictions Ans First credâ—t may be given in sensu diviso to those that may possibly speake contradictions if we meane by credit a morall respect of humane faith but if he meanes credit of faith Divine I then grant it that such credit is not to be given to them which may speake contradictions for how are they then infallible as they must be by my Adversary if they ground faith As was said of the Milisians Non sunt stulti sed possunt stulta facere they are not fools and yet can do foolish things so a Council may be wise and yet may speake foolish things and I may give some credit to them in generall for their wisedome though it be possible for them to say that which includes a contradiction Secondly I may charge Councils with contradictions to one another though not to themselves For
also it speaks plainly and so distinctly unto many other profitable points as that no doubt can remain of the true sense And fifthly whereas they say or if there be made any doubt of any thing of importance c. this new peice takes off from the old and makes the rent worse for if the living Oracle speaks so distinctly that no doubt can remain of the true sense then what need of any further provision for doubts emergents as if they durst not trust their own principles And again if they can assoile all doubts that shall arise why do they not why since the Trent Council hath there been no other to explain the sense of the former in severall particulars that which was never done and yet would be of such use is morally reputed for an impossibility as St. Jerom disputed against the Pelagians This would prove wilfull ignorance in the Church Representative And therefore cannot we be obliged to follow it absolutely for it seems sometimes it will not lead us And if they say that we may well be saved without the infallible dejudication of the sense of perplexed terms why do they then include in the case a thing of importance Yea and also we can then by their allowance say we may be safely ignorant of some points which are not of importance to salvation and therefore are in a capacity good enough to give the negative to a Judge infallible Nay sixthly neither can the doubt be presently cleared by some new Declaration authentically notified unto us by our Pastors and Doctors Not presently first because a Councill must be called which the Roman Church will be well advi of before and if it costs them as much time to consider of it and to dispatch it as the Trent Council this presently will not come within forty years and more And if he says the present Pope can presently deliver the sense and notify it authentically then why says he it may be done by Pastors and Doctors Why doth he speak in the number of plurality to the prejudice of the one Authoritative Pastor Well it may be he means Pastors and Doctors in common can authentically notifie us the sense then private Doctors may be authentick which spoils all and is contrary to Jesuit and Roman Catholicks as they call themselves in generall and to his own opinion who placeth all authority and infallibility in a Council confirmed by the Pope For we are bound they say to the sense of the Decrees then if private Doctors and Pastors can authentically notifie us the sense then are we bound to them Yea and also why may not then our private Pastors and Doctors declare to us the sense of doubtfull texts as well as theirs and then why an infallible Judge Yea can private Pastors and Doctors authentically notifie us the sense and not the infallible Judge If he can why doth he not If he will not how shall we take him for our Guide They have determined the words of their definitions but have either not determined or determined not to determine the acception and sense but that must be left for Pastors and Doctors And therefore seventhly and lastly he had better have not have produced these passages in reference to those texts For God gave us Pastors and Doctors then not onely one Pastor of the Church as the high Romanist accounts who makes all others to be as his Curates in all the universall Church Why then doth one arrogate that which in common is assigned to more Calvin in his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus thinks it unreasonable that the name of Bishop which is common to many should be appropriated to one though he denies not there the superiority of one to the rest of the Clergy and my Adversary would have the action of a Pastor authenticall to be common to many whereas the title others would have proper to one and to be given to the rest but analogically This text then by my Adversaries exposition derogates from the ordinary and universall Pastor because it alloweth his priviledge to many But then again he commits a fallacy of division in attributing the end to a part which is applied to the whole for it is said there And he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints the work of the Ministry They are all given complexively for that end and he takes it distributively and of the last As if all faith were to be resolved into the dictates of Pastors and Teachers whereas the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner stone Eph. 2.20 Yea and again there is to be made a difference between the Pastors and Doctors then and now there having been then better gifts given to them than now and they having been then nearer the fountain of Evangelicall truth than now and therefore though the office is continued it is not necessary that when the Christian Church hath been so long setled there should be such perfection in the successors Distingue tempora as the rule is His seventh number might well have been spared Num. 7. for he seems to charge me with not doing what in the eight number he says I go about to do Only whereas he says for me that the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation the terms may admit a distinction If he takes the terms all alone so as to be understood contradistinctly to an infallible Judge so we stand to them if he takes them so as to exclude all use of Pastors and Doctors so are not we bound to them we can in our opinion exclude the infallible Judge without exclusion to the direction of Pastors and Teachers which although not exempted from possibility of error yet may also be consulted even in texts sufficiently plain Besides as he states the point for us that the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation we can easily subscribe unto upon another distinction which we have in metaphysick about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the unapprehensivenesse of them doth more proceed from the weaknesse of the faculty than the nature of the things themselves so the Scriptures by themselves alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary although we were not able to perceive infallibly the sense of them All things necessary yet are infallibly taught there and therefore this serves to the evacuation of their verbum non scriptum because that this is not pretented for the clearing of Scripture but for the supply of matter defective Num. 8. To come now to the discussion of the texts And first you presse the second time that of St. Paul to Tim. 2.15 16. And here he says Take for my first Answer that which I gave you when you first alleadged this place ch 1. num
put me in minde again that I cannot credit it to be the Word of God by virtue of the Translation since according to my opinion Translations are onely so far Gods Word as they agree with the Originals but we have onely Translations of S. Matthews Gospel no Original at all This we have in places before spoken to But suppose no Original Copie of Saint Matthews Gospel yet this makes no impossibility of belief in Stapletons judgement because we may believe immediately without the interposal of the Church And the Translation is considerable as an Instrument to represent the Object not to help the Effect it hath more relation to the fides quae than the fides quâ to the Faith objective rather than the Faith subjective So that I do not believe the sense to be true for the Translation but I beleve the Translation true because it agrees with the Sense And he that made the Originall can Supply it Again they belive the Gospel of St Matthew Do they not how do they believe it by the authority of the Church Well but what authority had the Church either operative or declarative to make or declare that to be Scripture which was not Scripture they say then the Church can make translations and particularly the vulgar latin to be authentique but the vulgar is not absolutely authentique by confession of their own men And besides the best reason which could be had it been true of the vulgar was this that that should be authentique because it was made by the original copies before they were corrupted Yea but my adversaries say there was no original copie of St. Matthews Gospel or if there was they are worthy to die as David said of Abner because they have kept their Master no better Are they now the Church unto which perfidia non potest habere accessum no unfaithfulness can have access Again if there was not an original copie or no copie of the original how shall we believe their Church to be infallible since the chief place of strength for their Church is found in that Gospel 16. Ch. 18. as Perron would think Suppose the question then be made how they prove their infallibility by Scripture answer is made by the 16. of St. Matt. the 18. Well but we must know it first to be the word of God before they prove their Church infallible by it Now they are at as great a loss as we for they cannot prove that Text to be the word of God by the infallibility of the Church because the infallibility of the Church is in question if that be not before hand assured to us that it is the word of God If then at length they have a mind to rest themselves in common argumentative principles and resolve their perswasion of it to be the word of God upon the credit of universal tradition so do we as to this kind of perswasion Whereas then they say It is uncertain who the Translator was and of what skill and honesty we answer this makes more against them For if a Divine Faith be necessary as they mightily assert then it is reason that we should less relie upon humane arguments which make but humane faith and therefore for our private assurance should believe it upon Gods own authority To that they say If there were one Hebrew Copie then in St. Ierom's time what is that to our purpose now I answer first that this may abate their confidence of an absolute negative 2. If those of Beraea did gratifie St. Ierom with the use of that Hebrew Copy it is very probable that as the former Beraeans were diligent in searching the Scriptures whether those things spoken by St. Paul were true so those would take care to consign it â—o posterity if there was but that one copie thereof 3. If he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans to describe it as before then surely of that Autograph St. Ierome would have made an Apograph he would have made another copy And 4. If the translation they so much brag of were his they know what skill and honesty the Translator was of So then they are brought to this either to take my answer or to deny their translation which they will And all their shifts will not help them N. 47. Here he would put me out of my shifts as he calls them I asked them how they were sure of their latin interpretation to be authentique they say now by tradition of former ages Well but we are satisfied thus also by way of argument concerning the Scriptures and in particular concerning the Gospel of St. Matthew We say also that we are infallibly satisfied herein by the Spirit of God And this way of faith I hope we may assert we may believe what we cannot prove as they believe that Roman Faith which they cannot prove But he saies we are incapacitated to make use of tradition This tradition doth not certâ—fie you because you hold it fallible So then Crede quod habes habes Is this a sufficient argumentation And so consequently it is infallible to you because you hold it infallible So it must it seems be You do not hold it because it is infallible but it is infallible because you hold it And thus infallibility shall not make faith but opinion shall make infallibility I had thought before that verity had been fundamentally in things and that things had not been true because we conceive them so but our conceits had been true because things are so Surely it is a better argument that the Roman Faith cannot be certified to them because their principles are uncertain as hath been shewed then that tradition cannot certifie us because we hold it fallible If it be infallible we are as sure as they in the certitude of the object though because we think it fallible we are not certain certitudine subjecti in the certitude of the subject valeat quantum valere potest And why would they have us sure of our faith in the certainty of the subject and yet scarce allow a certainty of salvation in the certitude of the object But then 2. They are sure by the tradition of former ages namely universal tradition they mean do they not if so universal traditition includes all places then how comes infallibility to be the prerogative of their Church when they are to prove their faith by universal tradition 3. It seems they do not hold tradition to be infallible and therefore by their own argument it cannot certifie them since that which was held in the Church universally for the first ages they do not now hold as they have been told namely the millenary opinion infant communion standing up in prayer from Easter to Whitsuntide Yea why do they not stand up altogether at prayer as was appointed by a Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. If they mean the terme certifie as infallibly we grant it if they mean it morally we deny it and therefore if they
not calling him so had contradicted him But then the supposed differences are about Circumstances by his own confession What is this to matter of faith in necessary doctrine which is the center point of the question unto which all the lines should be referred and therfore he had done nothing if he had done more in this kinde And I thinke we are as sure of the right in such varieties as they And also he might have remembred that rule of Saint Cyrill of Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let things of curiositie not be spoken of in the Church But the sense of them is that we must be Papists or no Christians But if they were Turks we might say more And where nothing is necessarie any thing is abundant He comes next to my last shift as he calleth it that the people doe fix their faith upon that which is interpreted not upon the interpretation To this he objects thus you may fix your faith upon a lie for how know you whether the thing delivered you by the interpreter be Gods word or the interpreters own word specially when we know not who this interpreter was how skilful how faithful how true a copie he used Ans To the confirmation of what he here objects against were added distinct reasons or reasonable distinctions These he saies nothing to but what cavil he can make against the conclusion he is willing to without answer to my reasons 2. We believe that our people can better believe the word of God in a translation than their people without a translation for the people must believe their Church without the knowledge of any translation Let them make their faith good without a translation and we shall make our faith as good in a translation And I think our people may as well credit the Authority of our Church in a translation as their people may credit the Authority of their Church without a translation 3. By their own Argument they are more in the dark for if the perswasive of our faith be the certainty who this interpreter was how skilful how faithful how true a copy he used because they do not know who the interpreter of St. Matthews Gospel was into Greek how skilful how faithful how true a copy he used how can they believe it And therefore we return him his own words how know you that this translation doth not conveigh their own fansies in the place of Gods word Do they know it because their fansie of their Church tells them that this is Gods word Thus then they may have a double phantastical assurance and nothing else This they are forced to hold sufficient Yet how doth this agree with their own acknowledgements that the vulgar latin as to this is also a translation and yet as they must confess that it is so far a true translation as it doth agree with the original They cannot resolve their faith into the original never proposed to them Into the translation they say they do resolve it And this must be the written word What written word is that which is neither translation nor original For the Greek is neither their translation nor their original And yet surely the Greek is more like to be the original than the latin for if there was no Hebrew copie extant as they say then was the Latin a translation out of the Greek And if they say the Greek was not the original then the Latin is a translation without an original which is oppositum in apposito So then when all comes to all we are as well setled in the tenure of our assurance as to the Gospel of St. Matthew as they or more because we stand to that which they have but a translation of And they have but the Latin Church for their Latin we have the universal Church for the Greek But forsooth they believe their Church to be infallible we do not believe the Church to be infallible But what then if the authority of the Church were crescent according to the opinion of the recipient then the Scripture had not been the word of God unless men had thought so And then opinion would make faith because it would make infallibility As then they must say that their Church was assured by the Holy Ghost for so the termes of their Synod run Haec sacrosancta Oecumenica generalis Synodus in spiritu sancto legitime congregata that their Latin translation i◠if it be at all authentique so may we ultimately believe the Gospel of St. Matthew to be in the matter of it authentique For if there be not sufficient assistance of the spirit of God to Christians severally as to necessity of Salvation how did the Christians do before there was ever a general Council What is added hereabouts might have been spoken without Sarcasmes or might have been left out We can know which of those so many Greek Copies is the onely true one as well as they And a clown will be as able to understand which is the best English Translation as if there were such difference as well as with them he can understand which is a right General Council or which was in the right as to the varieties in the Latine Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth And though they cannot confer the Translation with the Original No more can the Roman People compare their Translation with the Originals and yet Bellarmine as before saies in some cases we must have recourse to the Originals But did not Xavier convert the Infidels yes they will say So then And did he not preach that which is in the Bible Yes they will say And did not they believe Yes they will say Now then how was this Faith wrought in them By the Spirit of God they will say or they must say For they could not compare that which was said by him with the Originals or with the Doctrine of the Church So then our people can believe without conferring a Translation with the Originals as well as theirs And they know who said Si fides in doctos selos caderet nihil esset pauperius Deo And again Surgunt indocti rapiunt coelum c. as the Father The very neck then of this point may be thus resolved In the order of credibles their first Proposition is The Church is infallible Our first Proposition is The Scripture is the Word of God Now their Proposition is grounded in Authority or else is believed by its own light Not by its own light for then the Scripture may be believed so which they deny Then it is grounded in Authority That either Humane or Divine Humane Authority cannot make Faith No Divine Authority but either that of Scripture or internal by the Holy Ghost Not by Scripture then that Proposition of theirs is not the first Then by the Holy Ghost and then by the same way we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God as they believe the Church to be infallible And
them then note that this he speakes is in cases of uncertainty namely about things of question but we are ultimately upon points necessary And then 2. He speaks against casting off obedience but we are upon assent of judgment And then 3. The rule he useth speakes that we should not publiquely oppose his decrees but we are upon the negative only whether he may not suspend his opinion And hence the Author discourseth that we may leave them we may cast them off and oppose them when we are certaine as protestants were that what they command God doth countermand And for the second as he nameth him I think all things considered he hath little from him for his use As the scribe at least mistooke the quotation so the Author I think mistook the man In the places quoted pag. 310. 311. n. 110. there is nothing like It is true that excellent Author had great cause to urge convenent obedience to humane lawes but he denies intuitive obedience to any law but of God And therefore if he and Mr. Chillingworth be joined in the testimony that which answered one may answer the other And further if they will take p. 110. And so on for n. 110. They may finde enough to satisfie them of his opinion that he held Scripture a sufficient rule in matters necessary and therefore the obedience he urgeth must be in thinges of order which is extrinsecall to our debate and not blind neither as p. 110. The third Authority is rightly quoted but not rightly applied out of that excellent book for it speaks expresly of externall obedience we are upon internall He speaks for peace my adversary should apply it to faith He speaks it as to private persons my adversary should vltimately apply it to the Church nationall That which followes is a cavill that then the private man when all comes to all is the last judge to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred Ans The private man is no judge authoritative to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred but exerciseth for himself the judgment of discretion as being to be perswaded in his own minde as the Apostle speaks And thus much must be allowed by my adversary who lately asserted prudence to be of use in chusing Religion Yea if Prudence be tolerated in things of Faith Sapience is to be commended which refers to the highest principles and those are of Scripture And though it be some ingenuous prudence to preferre the judgment of a General Council or the Church as to the suspension of my opinion against them yet surely will it be sapience to rest my faith in principles of faith Therefore this and much more of this discourse comes not home to the question whether God hath bound me to give absolute assent to the definitions of the Church and to believe their commands to be just eo ipso because theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither is it impossible that a General Council should not see it There is a double impossiblity simple and Physical and then Moral The Simple impossiblity would make Faith but such is denied The Moral If it were granted could not make such a Faith as they stand for namely an infallible assent But the Moral impossibility which is no more than a great difficulty is not to be yeilded neither since the Trent Council They might as well not see that which was Evident as they did see that which was not Evident Communion under both kindes was Evident in Scripture and the practise of the Church yet notwithstanding they would see what was not Evident Communion-under one kind And therefore least Communion under both kindes should seem more Evident Bellarmin prudently informes that some of their learned men would not construe the 2. of St. Iohn of Sacramental participation And the ground he goes upon is sandy that which is truly Evident will of it self appear to be so or at least to the most judicious upright and best instructed Prelats of the Church Ans This may appear to them de facto not so Were not the Trent Fathers so And yet they did not see what was Evident in the point of the Communion and in some other points too as some of their own Religion did think as we have it in the History of the Trent Council 2. What a case should the poor people be in since populus non distinguit and yet they must compare the most judicious and most upright and best instructed Prelats Thirdly Take the Fathers of all ages and places and then their Doctrines will not abide the test as hath been made good to them by Bishop Jewel And therefore their Doctrines are not Evident by their own Principle because not Evident to them And then fourthly somewhat Evident to them the Romans have cashiered Infant Communion the Millenary opinion trine immersion standing up in prayer therefore they had best betake themselves to more than humane assistance namely from the Holy Ghost His debate afterwards about the consideration of the cause of the Censure will come to little if it be considered that the act of not hearing the Church is ambiguous and may relate either to the non-assent or to the contempt The former doth not simply expose him to the Censure in Heaven the latter may And if he understood his own terms he must rather take them of the latter because he speaks of an act of not hearing For the non-assent is negative to an act and so is the Greek considerable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is it which makes him truely guilty of not hearing the Church That which follows in way of concession is destructive of his building for he grants an errability of the key in which case the Censure is not ratified in Heaven So then how shall we know whether any be truely guilty For as the Church cannot be infallible to us at all to believe it if not infallible in all as Mr. Knot argues and my Adversary too if he denies the distinction of damnative errours so it cannot bind infallibly in any if not in all though there be a distance betwixt Faith and fact the proportion is the same And yet again if they will divide here by affirming infallibility in Faith fallibility in Fact why do they urge this Text which respects the latter And therefore that which follows And so the Church cannot erre in denouncing excommunication against such a person in dependance upon the premises is as much as to say the Church cannot erre when the key doth not erre Yet it might have erred in sensu divis◠which is sufficient for our purpose because our dispute is upon the point of possibility 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle said It is necessary that that it be while it be yet was it not therefore necessary to be before it was for that destroys the distinction of things contingent from things necessary And therefore what follows hereupon if I should answer he would account necessary to
Christian world the power of the chief Pastour of the universal Church is coextended to the universal Church Ans First Dato suppose there were by Divine institution which will never be proved a chief pastour of the universal Church yet the Emperour might be Lord of the Christian world too in his external faculty And therefore this concludes not 2. this Language was not knowen till Boniface the third in the seventh century The Roman Bishop had the honour to be called the Bishop of the first Sea or seate And yet not the first Bishop in way of jurisdiction 3. The Emperour may be as much Lord of the Christian world by Divine institution as well as the Pope for both are by election the Pope is to be chosen by Cardinals which cannot shew a Divine institution But then also he allowes Political proceeding from a temporal power yet he will not have it to be an Ecclesiastical calling such an one as the Pope called them by at the same time Ans Not Ecclesiastical subjective but Ecclesiastical objective it was And yet also Rex est mixta persona cum Sacerdote And therefore it may be the Hebrew word Cohen signifieth both Magistrate and Priest Order and freedom and time and place belong to the Magistrates administration And as for the Pope in their sense his giving an Ecclesiastical call at the same time it is utterly denied unless he could give a call before he was borne And as for the Bishop of Rome he met at Councils upon the same order with the rest Such things he should have proved rather then said And therefore that was falsly spoken by him that the Politicall proceeding was subservient to the Ecclesiastical Ans Non entis nulla accidentia There was no such Ecclesiasticall call by a Pope for there was no such Pope And 2. Though the Emperours calling was serviceable to Ecclesiasticall affairs yet the Ecclesiastical persons that met were servants to him therein And Bishops of Rome have not abhorred such acknowledgements herein And whereas some Romanists have compared the Pope to the Sunne and the Emperour to the Moon though some Popes since have eclipsed the Emperour yet some Emperours before have not only Eclipsed the Pope but have put him out Therfore had he good cause to say Peradventure sometimes Emperours might adventure to call dependently of the ratification of the supreme Pastour Ans surely there is more due when Adversaries will give so much Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem But this will not content us there was no real entity of such a Supreme Pastour Nor was he so much as then Ens rationis No the foure Generall Councils a primo ad ultimum were menaged in the call and ratification by the Emperours They gave them not onely countenance and a vote in point of belief but also their external establishment They began and ended them Idem est principium destitutionis constitutionis So the Nicene Council was called by Constantine the Great The Council of Constantinople was called by Theodosius the elder The Council of Ephesus by Theodosius the younger The Council of Chalcedon by Martianus and by them they had their confirmation And so Councils are to be called as our Church in the 21. Article The fourth answer he passeth here As to the fifth answer he saies these Elections do appear by authenticated testimonies and confirmation Ans But their Election may not appear free thereby That which may appear in the fact may not appear in the qualities And therefore if it were not free it were as well no Election as if the Council be known notoriously to use such proceedings we are not to acknowledge it for a lawful Council And this puzzles and disturbs our assent more Infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in Councils is necessary to infallible Decrees this they suppose In Councils unlawful there is no infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost this they must grant and in effect here he doth otherwise how can we disacknowledge any Council or not acknowledge it for a lawful Council Now then since a Council may by such proceedings notoriously known nullifie it self how shall we be certain whether a Council doth not morally forfeit its assistance Although imdem est non apparere et non esse as to outward censures yet this is not enough for an infallible assent of the Decrees to have a charitative opinion of lawful proceedings If I be deceived in my charitative opinion no ill consequence but if I be deceived in my opinion of the Council I wrong my self in misgrounding my Faith In point of charity no man is bound to infallibility but in we point of Faith we are therefore I do not well see can ever be ascertained of the infallibility of a Council how unless we be ascertained of an impossibility in the Council to lose the infallible assistance For as we cannot believe the Church's infallibility in one point unless it be infallible in all according to Mr. Knot my adversaries late Principles so we cannot be assured of the lawfulness of any one Council by the certainty of Faith unless we can be assured of the lawfulness of all Now then if they can infallibly inform us that every Council shall have infallible assistance we will not discuss at all that which cannot be namely whether it hath forfeited the priviledges by such proceedings but though it hath not forfeited its moral being by such proceedings we yet want a proof infallible whether so or not and then if not whether it shall have infallible assistance For ought I know the Holy Ghost may be said to preside there and yet not rule as Bellarmin in his 1. B. de con cap. 18. saies that the Pope in a Council may be considered as President or as Prince as President so he is to follow the major part as Prince so he can rescinde all Now which hath the Holy Ghost following the major part or the Pope Is the Holy Ghost tied to the Council as the Heathens fastned their Gods to their Cities No they will say not to all but lawful Councils But let us then know by the Holy Ghost which Councils shall be lawful Otherwise though infallible direction will never deceive us we may be deceived in infallible direction since there is acknowledged by him a possibility of humane malice and weakness and factions and bandyings and domineering self-interest Unless they can prove an extrinsecal over-ruling providence promised by God against humane malice c. to all Councils I shall never be sure whether they are not in any one And therefore that general Text the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church will not infer infallibility in a Council unless it could infer infallibility of the lawfulness according to them and yet not so neither according to us that Text is made good to every member of the Church invisible and is that therefore infallible If it be why then is infallibility arrogated to
Apostasie or Heresie or nothing it cannot fall but into errour it may fall To be sure this is the surest way unles they had beter arguments against every errour whatsoever or better answers for the arguments against them Nevertheless we must attend his Syllogism all this time all the visible guides or Praelats of the Church were lead and did leade into opinions contrary to the texts of your Church but all this time the spirit of truth did abide with them guiding them into all truth therefore the opinions contrary to your Church were true and not errours Well not to trouble them as to strictnes of forme To the proposition we can say that if they intend it of all the times from the Apostles we utterly deny it if they mean it of the times after the first six hundred yeares of the Church then we grant the proposition but utterly deny the assumption they were not guided by the spirit into such a Latin Edition into halfe communion And this denies his proof that those opinions were true because they were led into them by the Holy Spirit This is denied and is the question And it is more easily said that the Holy Spirit was with us by common assistance unto our opinions then with them by infallible assistance unto their opinions If we are to Judge of their assistance by the effects we had need of infallible assistance if it were convenient for the discourse to conclude for them but I am sure we have no need of infallible assistance to conclude against them Neither is it any boot to them that the Spirit leads all into truth for this may be limited to saving truth And this is not sufficient for them who must have absolute infallibility or none And then all may be limited as that proposition God will have all men to be saved is limited by Aquinas out of St. Austin by the like such a School-Master teacheth all in the Town whereof the sense is this not that he teacheth every own simply but all that are taught are taught by him So the Spirit all leads that are led but all simply are not led The limitation then in regard of the object of the Person or in regard of the object of the thing cuts off all their provision from hence And when we have sufficiently refuted their points of difference we have no need to say any thing that the Holy Spirit should teach contradictions if he were with them and us too for first infallible assistance is asserted to neither but denied and common assistance doth not exclude all errour and then 2. The Holy Spirit was not with them infallibly by the effect for since the same Spirit doth not teach contradictions he did not infallibly teach them that which is oposite to Scripture which he did teach That which followes in compare of the visibility of their Teachers with ours or any other Churches is but a meer flourish Shew me a succession in all ages of the Guides and lawfull Pastours of any Church holding your Tenets in points differing from ours Ans Succession de se is like number of no value Therefore they must prove their doctrine to be right otherwise it will be a succession of errour for as he said Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris 2. It is accidentall to a true particular Church to have succession and the Church at first was true antecedently to the succession and so the former times must never have been certain of their being right because a Persecution might afterwards have interrupted their succession 3. The Heretickes bragged of their sucession too therefore this is no proper special distinctive argument 4. Where is their succession of universal Bishops for the first six hundred yeares Then where is their Church Then either let them not give or take that argument 5. Our opinions to them are negative then they are to shew a positive succession in the doctrin of those points which they can never do unless by their infallibility post-nate antiquity should be as good as Primitive For as for the Fathers of the purest times tam sunt omnes nostri quam D. Augustinus I am sure we may better say so then Campian 6. We can shew our doctrine by Scripture let them shew theirs without it And whatsoever is according to Scripture is true this they deny not our doctrine is yet made good to be according to Scripture therefore the Charter of our points we have the Records of in Scripture and this way is good enough for us which is a posteriori And yet also we can tell them that if it had not been for their cruelty and domination we might better have returned them that which St. Austin said to the Donatists vos tam pauci tam novi tam turbulenti And God hath left us in all ages of greeks and others who have given us occasion to say we hold nothing in the points of difference but was held before Therefore this argument doth not succeed so that they must still labour to find a reason why our doctrine should not be as good as theirs N. 31. The sense of this Section we have had before And it falls into such a Syllogism whatsoever was Gods end in giving of Pastours is allwaies compassed That the Church should be without errour and should not be as Chidren wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine was Gods end Ephes 4.12 Ans Whatsoever was Gods end is allwaies compassed so farr as it was his end where the effect depends not also upon morall causes take it so and we grant the major and deny the minor it was not Gods end that the Church should be without all errour whatsoever and the effect doth depend upon moral causes which may hinder the success The end of the Sacraments in the time of the Gospel they will say was to conferr grace ex opere operato yet they say they have not that effect Ponentibus obicem Or thus whatsoever is Gods end in his will of purpose that shall surely be compassed but what is his end in the will of sign is not allwaies compassed take it then in the latter sense so I deny the major take it in the former sense so I deny his minor For this would be more unreasonable by their doctrine for if God should work omnipotently to secure men from errour by meanes how should the obedience of faith be brought under freedome of will 2. This respects also particular Churches and therefore will not serve their turne who though they make but a particular Church yet are wont to challenge the privileges of the universal 3. This Text speakes nothing of the power of Iurisdiction but of the power of order now the duty of our obedience beats respect formally to Authority and Iurisdiction or do they like some of Geneva divide Pastours and Teachers And then do they think that the ordinary Pastour is here principally aimed at in their extraordinary
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than an implicit explication of an Affirmative by a Negative The immutable God can preserve mutable creatures from actual mutation ibid. thereby implying that the Immutable cannot communicate his incommunicable Attribute of Immutability to any creature even because he cannot possibly perfect a creature into Himself But from actual mutation he can preserve any Creature as well an Ignorant single man as a whole Church Catholick Thus by endeavouring to uphold Mr. Cressy does throughly destroy his Doctrine All he saith coming to this That however God only is undeceivable yet he is able to preserve his deceivable creatures from being actually deceiv'd Sed quid hoc ad Iphicli Boves The Question is not Whether God can preserve a Church from being actually in error for so he can and often does particular Members of his Church But whether de facto he hath granted an Inerrability or an Impossibility of erring unto that which they call the Roman Catholick Church Not whether the Church can be actually false in her opinions but whether or no she is Infallible or exempted by God from the passive power of giving false Judgement in points of Faith Will Mr. Cressy so confound an Adjective in Bilis with a participle derived from the passive preterperfect Tense as either to argue à non actu ad non potentiam or else to pass over from the one unto the other Will he argue that Adam before his fall was Impeccable because he yet was preserved from actual sin or that the Church was Infallible in the Apostles own Times because she was not erroneous untill she was He cannot sure be so destitute either of Logick or Grammar skill I think it rather his skill to dissemble both as finding no other way to dispute a whole Chapter for such a Doctrine unless he either begg's or forsakes the Question But now to give him more Advantage than he is mindfull to give himself when he allows so great a privilege to the present Governours of the Church in every Age whom he will have to be the living and speaking Judges to whom without contradiction all particular Churches as well as persons Ubi supra p. 97. must meekly yield up their Assent Let us allow it to be his meaning not that These are undeceivable but that God doth still preserve them from being actually deceiv'd Was not Pope Hildebrand himself the supreme speaking Judge when yet the * Imperial Statut. apud Goldast Tom. 1. p. 74. Council at Wormes did set him out as a Brand of Hell Conc. Constantien A. D. 1414. Seff 11. Edit Bin. To. 7. 1036. Notoriè criminosus de homicidio veneficio pertinâ—x Haereticus Simoniacus contra Articulum de Resurrectione mortuorum dogmatizavit Et paulò superius cum Uxore fratris sui cum sanctis moniatibus Incestum commisit p. 1035. Was not John the 23. the supreme speaking Judge of Mr Cressy's then present visible Church when yet he openly deny'd the Immortality of the soul and for That with other crimes was condemn'd by the Council then held at Constance Were not John the 22. and Anastasius the 2. the supreme speaking Judges in their several Times who yet were both stigmatiz'd for the Crime of Heresie Let Mr Cressy now speak like an honest man Were such superiours as these then living and speaking to conclude all controversies to Interpret Scripture and the Fathers to put to silence all particular Churches to subdue mens mindes to an Assent and this under the penalty of their being cut off from the body of Christ Let him read his own dictates p. 97. It will but little mend the matter to say The Pope is but one and that He spake of All Superiours Because besides that they may All have their Byasses and Errors as well as He in case they are all consulted with as they never are 'T is very evident that the Pope like the Sun among the Starres is more than All in all Cases The greatest part of those Councils which they are pleas'd to call General have been indeed little better than the meer properties of their Popes which that I may not seem to say as one that loves to speak sharply but rather as compell'd by their own Accompts of them I shall here give an Instance in one or two In the last Lateran Council under Julius the 2. A brief Accompt of the last Lateran Council and Leo the 10. The Holy Scriptures at the first Session are humbly laid down at his Holinesses Feet And an Oath being administred are formally toucht by the Officials The Pope in that Session is call'd The Prince of all the world and in the next The Priest and King to be adored by all the People as being most like to God Himself Accordingly in the 3d The Kingdom of France by Pope Julius is subjected to an Interdict and the Mart held at Lyons transferr'd to Geneva The pragmatick Sanction is rescinded in the fourth for the improving of the Trade of Ecclesiastical Hucksters the buying and selling of Church-preferments The Pope is asserted as Gods Lieutenant upon Earth though not of equal merits A very signal Condescension and to be kept in everlasting Remembrance God is meekly acknowledg'd to be superiour to the Pope In the fifth Session Julius dies Ne sleveris Fiâ—ia Sion ut Ep scoâ—â—us Mâ—d usiensis affatur Papam qâ—ia Ecce veâ—â—t Leo de Tribu Juda Radix David â—cce Tibi suscitavit Deus Salvatorem c. Te Leo Bâ—atissime Salvatorem expectamus Te Liberatorem vâ—nturum speravimus Concil Lateran ult Sess 6. Bin. To. 9 p. 74. another great Condescension And Leo his Successor is saluted as no less than the Lion of the Tribe of Judah the Root of David the Saviour and Deliverer that was to come A pretty clinch but a blasphemous complement and unworthy a Bishop's mouth In the eighth and ninth Sessions This Lion Roars first against them that shall violate his Decrees in the present Council to whom he threatens such a Sentence of Excommunication as none but Himself could absolve them from Next against the Emperour Kings and Princes whom he chargeth not to hinder such as were coming to the Council under the penalty of incurring God's Displeasure and his own In the last of those two Sessions Divinae Maj statis tuae conspectus vutilanti cujus fulgore imbecilles oculi mei caligant c. Et paulo post In Te uno legitimo Christi Dei Vicario pâ—opheticum illud debuerit â—uâ—sus impleri Adorabunt cum omnes Reges Terrae omnes Gentes servient ci Ibid. Sess 9. p. 114 116. Antonius Puccius tells Leo how his Eyes are darkned by the rutilant Brightness of his Divine Majesty in him alone as the Vicar of God and of Christ That saying of the Prophet ought again to have its completion All the Kings of the Earth shall come and worship All the Nations under Heaven shall do him
faith but only Opinion or humane belief ANSVVER THe Paper may be resolved into a Supposition and a Reason and a Conclusion To these in order First The Supposition It is not sufficient to make one a Catholick that he believe the same things that a Catholick doth believe unless the Catholick Church be the Ground also of his belief c. as in the Amplification of it This Supposition is indeed the main Position of the Pontificians and that which is formally Constitutive of them in that Denomination so that the Answer to it is not made as to a private Opinion or the Opinion of a private Man but as to the General Tenet of their Church in the matter of it In the Terms the word Catholick is to be distinguished for if they mean thereby such an one as they account a Catholick viz. one subject to the Church of Rome upon its own Authority It is very true that None is such a Catholick but he that shall render his belief to them in all things upon this their Proposal and so whatsoever is the Material Object of their faith yet the Formal Object is the Definition of the Church of Rome But if there be a true Sense upon ancient Account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church then there may be in a true sense a Catholick now who doth not make the Church the last Resolutive of faith For where the Scripture was acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners also there the Authority of the Church was not the Determinative thereof And that it was will be made good if it be desired by several Testimonies But secondly give it suppose it that None is a Catholick in a right sense but he that believeth what the Church believeth because the Church believeth it yet the Romane will not gain his purpose thereby unless we would grant this Supposition also That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church which indeed is meant in the Paper though wisely not expressed But this supposition that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church is not to be yielded neither in regard of Comprehension for that makes a contradiction nor in regard of Dominion neither for other Churches have not submitted themselves to their Authority this needs no disproof from us till it hath a proof from them And thirdly If we should stand up to all that their Church in particular doth propose and if we should assent to it upon their Account we might be damned not for our want of faith but for Excess of faith in the Object Material and for the Error of faith in the Formal Object For we should believe more then is true if we should believe whatsoever they believe and somewhat also destructive of Articles in the Apostles Creed And we should also believe upon the wrong Inductive which is not the Authority of their Church as we may see now in the Answer to the Reason The Reason hath in it somewhat true somewhat false True that faith is to believe a thing because God revealeth it False that there is no Infallible way without a Miracle of his Revelation coming to us but by their Church which they suppose to be the Church its Proposition For if the question be This how shall we come to know whether the Church of Rome be the right Church upon the Authority whereof we must ground our faith Wherein shall we terminate our belief hereof In the Authority of the Church of Rome or not We are to believe that they say which God hath revealed but the Cause of our belief must be because the Church proposeth it So then we must believe the Church of Rome upon her own testimony and we must resolve all into this that the Church of Rome is the right Church although it be neither a Revelation nor a natural Principle such as this that The Whole is greater then the Part which indeed gave the Occasion of that Check which was given to Rome Greater is the Authority of the world then of a City Orbis quam Urbis S. Jerom. in Ep. ad Evagrium Wherefore if the faith of a Catholick must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it as is said in the Conclusion yet it is not necessary that this Church should be the Church of Rome For this in proportion would be to resolve our Perswasions into the Judgment of particular Men because a Particular Church which according to the Paper makes no Catholick faith but an Opinion or humane belief REPLY IN the Paper received the Position which I gave It is not sufficient c. is disliked because it makes the Catholick Church the Ground of our belief but in truth I find no reason given for such dislike or any thing said against it but what to me seems very strange and is this If there be a true sense upon ancient account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church c. To which I answer that I would fain know what Catholick upon ancient Account did not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable Contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Church S. Iren. l. 3. c. 4. saith We ought not to seek among others the truth which we may easily take and receive from the Church seeing that the Apostles have most fully laid up in her as into a rich Treasure-house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept all things which are of truth that every man that will may take out of her the drink of life For this is the Entrance of life but all the rest are Thieves and Robbers for which cause they are verily to be avoyded But those things which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loved and the tradition of truth is to be received And the said Iren. l. 1. c. 3. telleth us that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence the Apostles faith and that which they preached S. Cypr. Ep. ad Cornel. avoucheth that the Church alwayes holdeth that which she first knew See also his Ep. 69. ad Florentium And S. Aug. had so great an Estimation of the Church that he sticked not to say cont Ep. Manich. quam vocant Fundamentum c. 5. I would not believe the Gospel except the Authority of the Church did move me thereunto Moreover disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptism of Hereticks l. 1. cont Cresc he useth this discourse Although of this that the baptisme of Hereticks is true baptism there be no certain Example brought forth out of the Canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keep the truth of the said Scriptures when as we do that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the Authority of the Scriptures themselves doth commend That
because the Scripture can not deceive whosoever doth fear lest that he be deceived through the Obscurity of this question may ask Counsel touching it of the Church whom without any doubt the Scripture it self doth shew The same S. Aug. l. 4. de Trin. c. 6. saith No lover of peace will be against the Church And Ep. 118. c. 5. he plainly terms it Most insolent madness to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth I will insist no longer upon the Testimony of the Fathers of which I might pour a whole shower against you lest I receive the ordinary Answer that this their Opinion was one of their Navi Spots or Blemishes and therefore shall be rejected but will â—â—ge your own Authors and Protestants to whom perhaps you will give more Credit Calvin upon Esay expounding the words of the 59 Chap. My Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart from thy Mouth and from the Mouth of thy Seed and of thy Seeds Seed saith our Lord from henceforward and for ever saith He promiseth that the Church shall never be deprived of this inestimable good but that it shall alwayes be governed by the holy Ghost and supported with heavenly doctrine Again soon after The Promise is such that the Lord will so assist the Church and have such care of her that he will never suffer her to be deprived of true doctrine And his Scholar Beza de haeret à Civili Magistratu puniendis p. 69. confesseth that the Promise of our Saviour of the Assistance of the holy Ghost was not made onely to the Apostles but rather to the whole Church D. Saravia in defens tract de div Ministr gradib p. 8. saith The holy Spirit which beareth rule in the Church is the true Interpreter of Scriptures from him therefore is to be fetched the true Interpretation and since he cannot be contrary to himself who ruled the Primitive Church and governed the same by Bishops those now to reject is not certes consonant to Verity Our Lutheran Adversaries of Wittenberg Harm of Confess Sect. 10. p. 332 333. Confess Witten Art 30. not onely confess the Church to have Authority to bear witness of the holy Scripture and to interpret the same but also affirm that She hath received from her husband Christ a certain Rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by Miracles from heaven according unto the which she is bound to interpret those places of Scripture which seem to be obscure and to judge of doctrines Field also l. 4. c. 19 20. Sect. The Second acknowledgeth in the Church a Rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles according unto which he will have the Scriptures expounded And we cannot doubt but that she hath followed this Rule having such Assistance from Gods holy Spirit Furthermore the same Dr. Field in the Epistle to his Treatise of the Church professeth thus Seeing the controversies of Religion are grown in number so many and in Nature so Intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them What remaineth for Men desirous of Satisfaction in things of such Consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of Men in the World is that blessed Company of holy Ones that houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may embrace her Communion follow her directions and rest in her Judgment For brevity I will omit many other of our Adversaries who are of the same Minde and will now press harder upon you Surely if we believe the Creed the Church is holy if the Scripture She is the Spouse of our Saviour without spot or wrinkle which Eulogies and indeed glorious titles would nothing well become her if she can teach us that which is false This Scripture also gives us these known doctrines and directions That the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3. v. 15 c. That the Church is built upon a Rock and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against her Matth. 16. v. 18. He that will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican Matth. 18. v. 17. He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Luke 10. v. 16. Loe I am with you even to the Consummation of the World Matth. 28. v. 20. I will ask the father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you the Spirit of truth Jo. 14. v. 16. And again yet many things I have to say unto you but you cannot bear them now but when the Spirit of truth cometh he shall teach you all truth Jo. 16. v. 12 13. to omit many other the like passages is Scripture Now this Church whose Authority is thus warranted did praecede the Scripture which for a great part thereof was written but upon Emergent Occasions as Field Hook Covel and other our Adversaries have confessed which Occasions had they not been perhaps we never had known this Scripture Suppose then we had lived in those times when there had been no such Scripture as many did some part thereof being not written above sixty years after our Saviours Ascension Ought we not then to have believed the Churches tradition and preached word This Church was called the Pillar and Ground of Truth before the words were seen in writing and the like I might say by the other places before cited which are now in the Scripture but were delivered by word of mouth to the Church before ever they were written by all which places the Authority of the Church is commended to us and we referred to the said Church as a Guide in all our doubts And all these words of God were no less to be believed and obeyed before they were written then since Even the Scripture it self is believed upon the Tradition and Authority of the Church being part of the Credenda it proposeth nor could we at this day have known which books were true now Canonical which Spurious but by the Churches decision and Proposal as the said learned Mr. Hooker and other our Adversaries do acknowledge Again who doth not ground his belief upon the Church upon what doth he ground it but upon his own fancy or private Interpretation of Scripture the true Sourse and Nurce of all Heresy And such as these may indeed be found upon ancient Account as Helvidius Vigilantius and the rest of Hereticks as the Catholick Church did then account them Now to that which is insinuated That the Scripture was sometime acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners it is answered that it is so now but this doth no way hinder the Churches being the Ground of our Belief for the Church is both the Ground of our believing the Scripture and also the Interpreter of Scripture as is above confessed by our Adversaries
and not private Spirit which I can esteem no better then a fantastical if not a fanatical Opinion and is Diametrically opposite to the words of the second of St. Peter 1.20 No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation And all this spoken here and in the Position c. of the Church is meant of such a Church as does truely deserve the name of Catholick and so it will appear that all the discourse in this paper I received of the Roman Church considered as a Particular Church or any other Particular Church is but Impertinent and Extravagant Now also I must assure the Answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome the formal Object of their Faith as he doth impose upon them for they acknowledge that to be the Revelation of God or the authority of God revealing which causes their Belief to the Supernatural and Divine and not onely Natural and Humane as is the Belief that there is such a City as Rome or that there is a William the Conquerour c. which kind of faith is All that Hereticks have and All such as do not ground their Belief upon the Authority of the Church I cannot also but observe in the received paper that it is improperly enough called Excess of faith as it is there opposed to want of faith to believe more then Necessary for the Number of things believed does not alter the Nature of faith it self And lastly I must tax him of false alledging the words in the Reason thus there is no infallible way without a Miracle of his Gods Revelation coming to us but by their Church whereas in the Paper delivered it is the Church abstracting from all Particular Churches and meaning the true Church which soever it is And this is done but to make way for that needless Excursion which there follows THE REJOYNDER SIR THere is no great reason for me to rejoyn First because you wave the Application of your Discourse as to the Roman Church which is not ordinary for those of your Profession when they speak highly of the Catholique Church Secondly Because I may let you alone to answer the first paper with your second as to the main of it Thirdly Because the greatest part of it hath one fault not to conclude contradictorily Yet in Christian respects to Truth and You I shall endeavour meekly some return to your Reply and to differ as little as may be from you I shall mostly follow your own Order In the beginning you dislike my dislike of the ground of Faith without giving you any Reason Answer I intended my answer as near as I could guesse to the design of your paper for the Roman Church by Obedience to the Bishop whereof Bellarmine in his Catechism Englished p. 65. 6 7. doth describe the Catholique Church You will excuse me then if I took the course to make my answer compendiously sufficient to that drift if you will hold with Papists herein And if you would confesse you meant the Roman Church by the Catholique then I have given you such a Reason against your Position as you will say nothing to And you may consider that you directed your paper as to a Protestant who is not contradistinguished to a Catholique but to a Papist if you be a Papist why doe you dissemble it to me If you be not why do we dispute And this Apology may be enough also to refute all your Objections against me of impertinencies and excursions and untrue Allegations if you will take notice also of my Parenthesis And now my Reason intimated in a promise shall be made good in performance And since you will in the question about the Catholique Church abstract from the Roman and all other particulars I shall give some account of Catholiques who did not make the authority of the Catholique Church the ground and cause of their Beleef whereby onely God his Revelation cometh to us infallibly as you expresse your self in your first paper but this Prerogative they ascribed to the Holy Scripture to be it wherein and whereby we are infallibly assured of Gods Will as to what we should beleeve and do in order to salvation That the authority of the Catholique Church is of use towards Faith we deny not but the cause and ground of Faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertaind of the mind of God is not the Proposition of the Church but the Word of God And such being the state of the question betwixt us I shall for your shower of authorities you say you could power out against me give you or shew you a cloud of witnesses as the Apostle speaks Hebr. 12.1 against you Your shower could not wet me through but this cloud may direct you home This Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Church and Scriptures as you may see by the 8.19 20 21. Articles and therefore it is not my Opinion will appear not to be new but agreeable to ancient Catholiques in your own esteem The first shall be Saint Irenaeus Have you appealed to Saint Irenaeus unto Saint Irenaeus shall you goe He in his third book first chapter first words thus We have not known the disposing of our salvation by any other then those by whom the Gospel came to us which then indeed they preached afterwards delivered it to us in the Scriptures by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith So he Now that which is delivered in Scripture by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of Faith is the ground and cause of our Faith And such is the Gospel according to this Testimony The next for us is Clemens Alexandrinus in the seventh of his Stromata towards the end in the 757. p. of the Greek and Latine Edition He which is to be believed by himself reasonably is worthy to be believed by the Lords Scripture and Voice working by the Lord inwardly to the benefit of men So he Then according to him the Holy Scripture is not worthy to be beleeved by men but men are worthy of beleef by it And therefore that must ground our Faith because it is it whereby we beleeve others And therefore he saith in the following words Surely we use it as the Criterium for finding out of things And therefore points are to be decided and determined by authority of it which is his chief discourse against Heretiques even to the end of that book And if you please to peruse and consider it you shall find there that in his judgement the Catholique Church which he also there commends doth not conserve it self in that denomination by its own authority but by the Rule of Scripture Now that which rules the whole rules the parts the Scripture rules the whole then us So Origen upon Saint Matthew Hom. 25. We ought not therefore for confirmation of Doctrine to swear our own apprehensions and to bring into witnesse those which every one of us doth
understand and think to be according to Truth unless he shall shew them to be holy out of that which is contained in the Divine Scriptures as in the certain Temples of God what can be more to our purpose Then the Scripture is the Ground of Doctrines then of Faith As for Athanasius we need not his words knowing his practice of holding the equality of the Divine Nature in the second Person the Son of God against all the World Yet he speaks as he did if you will look upon him about the Incarnation of the Word at the latter end But then having taken occasion by these if thou wilt read the Divine Books and wilt apply thy minde to them shalt learn out of them more plainly and more perfectly the truth of what we have said So he Now where the Truth is learned more plainly and perfectly there is the ground of Truth In the Divine writings is the truth of those things more plainly and more perfectly learned After the same manner doth Tertullian bring in his suffrage in his Book of Praescriptions a little after the beginning of it thus Do we prove the Faith by the Persons or prove the Persons by the Faith And again Faith consists in the rule You have the Law and Salvation by the observation of it And soon after To know nothing against the rule is to know all things And again That which we are the Scriptures were from the beginning we are of them before it was otherwise before they were corrupted by you So he besides other passages wherein he witnesseth for us Saint Ambrose giveth us also his voice in his first Book to Gratian chap. 4. in the beginning thus But I will not that you believe an Argument O holy Emperour and our disputation let us ask the Scripture let us ask the Apostles let us ask the Prophets Then we are to be determined in our Belief by the Scriptures Saint Cyprian also who for order of time should have been put before gives his verdict for us in the beginning of his sixth Sermon concerning the Lords Prayer thus The Evangelical Precepts most beloved Brethren are nothing else but the Divine Magisteries the foundations of building our Hope the firmaments of corroborating our Faith the nutriments of chearing our heart the Gubernacles of directing our journey the safegards of obtaining Salvation which while they do instruct the Docile mindes of Believers upon Earth bring them to the Kingdome of Heaven So the Father Where you see the Scriptures are asserted immediately to be the Ground and Firmanent of Faith Yea neither doth Saint Austin seem to speak onely for your cause In the seventh Tome in the third Chapter of the Unity of the Church against the Epistle of Petilianus in the beginning he hath these words But as I began to say let us not hear these things I say these things thou sayest but let us hear these things the Lord saith There are certainly the Books of the Lord whose authority we both consent unto we both believe we both are obedient to there let us seek our Church there let us discusse our cause And soon after Let those things be taken out of your way which against one another we recite not out of the Divine Canonical books but otherwise And soon after Some may ask why I would have these things taken out of the way since if they brought forth your Communion is invincible he answers because I would not have the Church demonstrated by Humane Documents but by Divine Oracles and so to the end of the Chapter which he concludes thus therefore let us seek it the Church in the Holy Canonical Scriptures I have now made good my words to give you Catholick Testimonies on our side Amongst which Saint Austins authority gives advantage to plant Arguments upon thus If in businesses of dispute we must hear what the Lord saith not what man saith then the Scripture is the ground not humane authority But let us not hear what I say or thou saist saith the Father but what the Lord saith Again Where we must seek the Church there we must resolve our Faith But we must seek the Church in the Scriptures as the Father saith If the Church is to be proved by the Scriptures then the Scriptures are the ground of Faith because they are the ground of the Church there is no resolution of Faith but in that which is indemonstrable therefore not in the Church because that is demonstrated by the Scriptures as he saith Again Divine Oracles are the ground of Faith the Scriptures are the Divine Oracles as he saith as the Scripture saith as Saint Ignatius saith in his Epistle to the Church of Sâ—â—yrna Indeed the proper object of Faith Catholick is the Word of God not the Word of Man And proportionable the cause of this Faith must be divine authority not any authority of Man As demonstrative reason makes Science so humane authority make Opinion but Faith is an assent to that which is spoken by God as true because he speaketh it therefore the authority of the Church is not a mean apt to beget Faith because it is of another kinde and cannot exceed the nature of humane authority although it be the highest in the kinde if it be represented in a lawful General Council Yet even General Councils have erred and therefore they cannot he the Ground of Faith This is the prerogative of the Canonical books as the Father and all Antiquity calleth them but never did we hear of a Canonical Church The Scripture is the Canon is the rule not the Church The Church witnesseth Truth The Church keepeth Truth The Church defendeth Truth The Church Representative in a Council determineth Controversies authoritatively not infallibly and therefore bindes not unto Faith but to Peace not to Faith in the Conscience but to Peace in the Church not affirmatively that we should say it is true because they say it but negatively that we should not rashly oppose it as false because they define it as true Hitherto we go for the honour of the Church Catholick not Roman And now I have given you some reason of our Faith It followes now in your Reply or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Curch Answ I say so too But what from thence To professe a belief that there is a Catholique Church whereof part is triumphant in Heaven part on Earth expectant and to professe my self to belong to the Catholique Church is not inclusive of your sense that the Catholique Church is the ground of our belief We believe the Catholique Church grounded in the Scripture or built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone as Saint Paul speaks Ephes 2.20 Secondly This is not to your purpose because the Catholique Church as it is an object of Belief must be considered as invisible whereas you intend the
Church as visible whose proposals we must receive and submit our understanding unto For the Invisible Church or Church as Invisible cannot order us in our Belief because as such it is not known to us I come now to your Testimonies And your first witnesse is Saint Irenaeus Answ We yeild all to Saint Irenaus nothing to you We say we ought not to seek amongst others the truth which we may easily take and receive from the Church c. Yes because the Church is serviceable to the truth by way of Ministery to deliver the Word of Truth to keep the Word of Truth to uphold the Word of Truth And so we acknowledge the Church to be a sufficient Treasury of Truth because we have therein the Scriptures But the Treasury doth not make the Money true nor currant for it is possible that there may be false Money in the Treasury Therefore we must not take it to be lawfull because it cometh out from thence and so the Scripture is not made true to us or the sense of it evidently credible to us because it is in the Church But we must look whose Image and Superscription the Doctrine hath and whether it be right coyn or not and it may seem to be of the right stamp and yet not Therefore saith Origen in his 34. Hom. upon Matth. All Money 1. Every word that hath the Royal stamp of God and the Image of his Word upon it is lawful Therefore we must bring it to the Word for trial We confesse we may take out of her the drink of Life yes but as out of a cistern such water as cometh from the Fountain the Scripture and we drink out of the Scripture the Water of Life as Tertullian in his Prescriptions We deny not this to be the entrance of Life because we have here the means of grace administred And all without the Church we say are thieves and robbers and they ought to be avoyded Yes All without the bosome of the Catholick Church which would break her Peace and rob her Treasury are as thieves and robbers and ought to be avoyded We grant that those things which are of the Church as being true from Scripture in points of faith or not repugnant to Scripture in things of Discipline are with great diligence to be loved And we allow it that the tradition of Truth is to be received Yes thus the tradition of Scripture the word of Truth or the Truth delivered in writing for so Tradition not seldome signifieth Or tradition of Truth which is according to Scripture as the Apostles Creed Not that whatsoever is delivered should be Truth as you would have it but whatsoever Truth is delivered should be received This is all that place as seemeth to me will afford Your second Testimony from the same Father may it self answer the Objection of the former and may confirm my answer Onely let me adde that he speaketh of the Church then purer then now If you will have more said to this you may find it in Saint Cyprians authority which you produce next The Church Catholick alwayes holdeth not maketh that which she first knew Where in Scripture Where else And where the Church holds that which it thus knew we hold with it and are beholden to the Church for holding it forth to us The Church may inform us of it but it doth not certifie it to us therefore doth not infallibly conveigh it the Truth to us therefore is not the ground of Faith The Office of the Church is as a Candlestick to hold the Light of the Word of Truth And moreover though is did alwayes hold that which it knew might it not also hold somewhat which she did not know Though it did hold that which was true might it not hold that which was false in other things As the Church of Rome holds many things which are true wherein we differ not and also many things false wherein she exceeds the Catholick Faith as in regard of Object Now put case therefore that that ancient Church near the Apostles times did not hold any point false but did hold Every point true yet even from hence nothing will be inferred sufficiently to your purpose unlesse you can prove that it was appointed by God to be the ground of Faith by an impossibility of errour in any particular Such is to be the ground of our Faith which is wanting in the Church not privatively as if it had been ever promised but Negatively because not promised to the Church after the Apostles times If it were possible that the Church might not erre yet this would not make us rest our Faith in it Faith hath no sure footing in such contingencies of Truth unlesse you prove a non-possibility of erring you doe nothing But we come now to the signal testimony of this kind that of Saint Austin I would not beleeve the Gospel unlesse the authority of the Church did move me To which I answer First if the testimonies of the other Fathers be defective in clearnesse or fulnesse as to this matter the testimony of one single Father though excellent will not amount to the Verdict of the whole Church and you have no Fathers yet for you for any thing I see Secondly Take this passage by it self and it seems to speak high but consider it with the tenour of his discourse in the whole chapter and it is like you will begin to think that it comes out from him in some heat of spirit to overcome his adversary Thirdly you will be pleased to give me leave to use a Criticisme which admitted according to the reasonablenesse of it will somewhat change the property of this suffrage It appeareth by compare of places in African writers that as is observed their manner was to expresse the tense more then past by the imperfect and also that he in other places must so be understood And if so here then it must refer to him as when he was a Manichee he was moved then as such by the authority of the Church to the embracing of the Gospel And so we grant that the authority of the Church doth move to beleeve the Scriptures But this cometh not to the case in hand which is intended for particular points of faith whether we should ground our faith of them in the Scripture and not in the proposal of the Church Neither is this an universal way as is pretended of coming to the beleef of the Scriptures by the commendation of the Church for some have been added to the Church immediately from the word as in the second of the Acts at the preaching of Saint Peter as is noted And yet fourthly mark the terms It is not said I would not believe the Gospel unlesse the authority of the Church did cause me but unlesse the authority of the Church did move me And thus this Testimony doth very well agree with our Opinion The authority of the Church might move him although he did ground his
us a direct way that fools cannot erre by it For we see with our eyes whole Thousands of Men very wise and Learned whilst they follow the Scriptures with all sincerity as they most solemnly protest from their heart to follow a world of quite contrary ways in matter of highest Importance to Salvation and consequently all these Multitudes of wise men but those who go one only of these wayes must needs go astray Now if wise Men in so great Multitudes do so strangely stray whilst in all sincerity as they protest they follow this way how is it true that fools cannot erre by it Doth not St. Austin and all the greatest Doctors that ever the Church had profess themselves unable to understand the Scriptures and this after many years study in them and how then can men of such ordinary Capacities and of so mean study and knowledg of those tongues in which the Scriptures were written and so great variety of Opinions about the true Canon of Scriptures and a far greater variety about the true Interpretation of so many most Important places of the true Canon of Scripture come to know the truth the Infallible and undoubted truth and this so assuredly that they may with a safe Conscience upon their private Judgment of discretion settle their faith unmoveably in points which they know to be so mightily called into doubt by the greater Part of the world yea that whole General Councels have unanimously defined the Contrary and believed those places of Scripture not to say that to be so which for those places of Scripture they still say and firmly believe to be so Is not such a belief mainly to be suspected even in the wisest and learnedst Men And will you then say still that this is A direct way unto us so that fools cannot erre by it The contrary will yet appear far more clearly when you shall have pondered the ensuing reasons yet take this for one strong reason why the Scriptures cannot be that Judge of Controversies who is to direct us by a way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it The second Reason to prove the Scriptures not to be this Judge is this There be many Controversies and may be yet very many more most nearly concerning the necessary Means to Salvation which can never be ended and undoubtedly decided by the Judgment and sentence to the Scriptures I will alledge several convincing Examples For a Controversie may be moved concerning the lawfulness of working or not working upon Saturdayes and Sundayes How will this Controversie be decided by the Scriptures All the old Scriptures command strictly the not working upon Saturdayes and no One single word of the New Scripture doth assure us that this Command was ever by Lawful Authority taken away or that there is the least unlawfulness in working upon the Sunday We know indeed that there was such a day as the Lords day called by that name because Saint John had a vision upon that day as he had also upon many other dayes We know St. Paul preached upon the first day of the week and so he did upon many other dayes and most upon the Saturday or Sabboth For He disputed in the Synagogue every Sabboth and the exhorted the Jews and the Greeks Act. 18. We know the first day of the week was at one time appointed for the gathering of Almes for poor Christians But how doth this or any of the former Places prove the Commandement of not working on the Saturday to be taken quite away and that undoubtedly Or how do any of these places impose upon All Christians a manifest and unquestionable Obligation of not working on Sundays And yet this is All that can be said out of the Scriptures for the undoubted abolishing of a certain Commandement of God and the undoubted bringing into the place of it a New Commandement without perhaps the Rising onely of our Saviour on the Sunday be sufficient to prove both these things undoubtedly Yet how can this be For the day of his Ascension into Heaven was the final period of all he did in the world and that day was Thursday The Resurrection indeed might be a Ground for such a Change but it is nowhere in Scripture that such a Change was made on that Ground Yea if we stand even to the New Scriptures our Adversaries the Jews will be too hard for us For they will tell us that according to our Scriptures when our Saviour was asked Mat. 19. What good shall I do that I may have life Everlasting our Saviour said If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandements And when that Man replyed to know what Commandement he did understand he clearly told him that he understood the Commandements of the Decalogue Those very Commandements which that Man knew well enough as it is said clearly also in St. Mark 10. Luke 18. You see here will a Jew or some new Sectary say unto us that even in our new Law our own Law-maker with his own mouth commandeth as a thing necessary to enter into life Everlasting the keeping of the Commandements of the Decalogue which that Man did know Therefore he in the New Law commanded that Commandement of keeping the Saturday to be observed as well as the rest And St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.19 Circumcision is nothing and Prepuce is nothing but the Observation of the Commandements of God See here St. Paul even after Circumcision was declared nothing to declare the Commandements of God to stand in force and yet among these Commandements a chief one is the keeping of the Saturday or seventh day on which God rested which reason also holdeth still for still it is true that God rested on the seventh Day and he blessed the seventh Day and sanctified it for the foresaid Reason How came this Sanctification and Blessing to be lost the reason of it being still as good as ever And why then will this Jew or Sectarist say should we prefer the keeping of any other day before this which hath so good a Reason that you cannot give a better at least undoubtedly better and which hath so manifest Authority of the Old and of the New Scriptures even Three of the four Evangelists and also in St. Paul whereas for the taking away of this Commandement or for the not working on the Sunday there is not one single Place in all the Bible much lesse such a place as manifestly convinceth This Argument is unanswerable to those who make the Scriptures the sole Judge of Controversies Again these Jews and new Sectaries will presse us that our own Scriptures which we hold onely to be our Judge in all Controversies do cleerly tell us that even in the New Law it is said Act. 15. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and us Apostles of the New Law to lay no further burthen upon you then these necessary things that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols and blood and that which
ever Now of no Kingdome in the world but of the Kingdome of Christs Church this can be understood This Church therefore shall stand for ever And consequently at no time it shall fall into damnable errors for then it is true to say It doth not stand but is faln most damnably Again in Isaiah 29. God doth clearly declare his Covenant with his Church according to the Interpretation of Saint Paul himself Rom. 11.26 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee and the words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever But how could the Word of the Lord more depart from the Mouth of the Church then if she should with her mouth teach damnable errors From this therefore he secureth his Church for ever and ever Hence Saint Austin saith l. de Unitat. Eccl. cap. 6 7 12 13. See him also l. 20. de Civit. cap. 8. in Psalm 85. de Utilit Credendi c. 8. Whosoever affirmeth the Church to have been overthrown as it were if at any time it should teach any damnable error doth rob Christ of his glory and Inheritance bought with his precious Blood yea Saint Hierom cont Lucifer c. 6. goeth farther and averreth that He that so saith doth make God subject to the Devil and a poor miserable Christ The reason is because this Assertion doth after a sort bereave the whole Incarnation Life and Passion of our Saviour of their Effect and End which was principally to found a Church and Kingdome in this world which should endure to the day of Judgement and direct Men in all Truth to Salvation Wherefore whosoever affirmeth the Church to have perished taketh away this effect and Prerogative from his Incarnation Life and Passion and avoucheth that at some times Man had no means left to attain to everlasting blisse which is also repugnant to the Mercy and goodnesse of God He also maketh God subject to the Devil in making the Devil stronger then Christ and affirming him to have overthrown Christs Church and Kingdome which our Lord promised should never be conquered That the Holy Fathers did believe the Church of Christ to be Infallible and of an Authority sufficient to ground Faith upon appeareth by their relying onely upon her Authority in the chiefest Articles of Faith which is to believe such and such Books are the true Word of God and upon this onely ground they ground this their Faith as in the 12. Number I have shewed Saint Athanasius Saint Hierome Saint Austin Tertullian and Eusebius to have received such Books for Gods Word and to have not received others and to have received such with veneration of Divine Authority as St. Austin spoke And upon this infallible Authority they all believed God the Father not to be begotten God the Sonne to be begotten by his Father onely and to be Consubstantiall to him and God the Holy Ghost not to be begotten but to proceed from both Father and Son Upon this infallible Authority they all held children to be baptized though nothing for certain could be alledged out of the Canonical Scriptures in this point but onely the Catholique Church taught this to be done as in the 16th Numb have shewed out of St. Austin who there calleth this relying on the Churches Authority The most true inviolable Rule of Faith And S. Chrysostome there also saith that these unwritten Traditions of the Church infallible onely in her Authoritie are as worthy of faith and credit as that which is written in Scripture And in the 19th Numb I have shewed out of St. Irenaeus That we should have bin as much obliged to believe although no Scriptures had been written as we are now and that the faith of whole Nations is grounded not in Scripture but consequently on the infallible Authority of the Church whose word he calleth the Word of God as I shewed in the end of the 22th Number I summe up all these Authorities that my Adversary may not say as he did that the authority of St. Austin was single when he believed the Gospel to be Gods Word upon the infallible authority of the Church for if her authority be by so many Fathers acknowledged infallible then St. Austin is not single in his opinion in this point But because that place of St. Austin speaketh home and because my Adversary saith That if we take this passage by it self it seemeth to speak high but saith he if we consider the tenour of Saint Austins discourse in the whole chapter It is like we will begin to think that it came from him in some heat of spirit to overcome his Adversary For these causes I say I will consider the tenour of St. Austins Discourse in this whole Chapter and I will shew manifestly that this his Doctrine was so far from coming out from him in some heat of Spirit to overcome his adversary that he maketh it the very prime Ground of his discourse and without he will stand to that Ground he there must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary This Chapter is the fourth Chapter Cont. Ep. Manichaei The whole substance of it is this The Epistle of Manichaeus beginneth thus Manichaeus the Apostle of Jesus Christ by the Providence of God the Father I ask therefore saith Saint Austin who this Manichaeus is You will answer the Apostle of Christ I do not believe it Perhaps you will read the Gospel unto me endevouring thence to prove it And what if you did fall upon one who did not as yet believe the Gospel what would you do then if such an one said I do not believe you This is his first Argument to shew that his Adversary by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle could prove nothing against those who as yet have not believed the Gospel then he goeth on But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel and so this Answer cannot serve me notwithstanding I must tell you that I am such an one that I would not believe the Gospel without the Authority of the Catholick Church did move me This being the ground of his Answer you shall see how he builds upon this and onely this Ground It followeth then thus I having therefore obeyed those Catholique Pastors saying Believe the Gospel the most Important point of Points Why should I not obey them saying to me do not believe Manichaeus Then upon this ground he presseth home saying Chuse which you will if you say believe the Catholiques then I must not believe you for they teach me not to give Faith to you wherefore believing them as I do I cannot believe you Now if you say do not believe the Catholiques then you do not go consequently to force me by the Gospel to give Faith to Manichaeus
the Church not to permit the use of Scripture unto the People and also you do abate of the Universal Proposition in the first Paper that Divine Faith in all things is caused by the proposal of the Church and therefore if you would hold you to this the Controversie would be lessened betwixt us for dato non concesso that we are bound to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God by the authority of the Church yet when we do thus believe it then the immediate ground of our Faith in those things clearly set down is the written Word of God and not the authority of the Church So then your first Number is indeed in no Number for you cannot mean thus that we cannot believe any thing proposed plainly in Scripture unlesse we believe the authority of the Church in that particular And therefore when you have proved the authority of the Church to be that which causeth and determineth our Faith of Scripture to be the Word of God you will say lesse then formerly and untill you do prove it you say nothing As touching the expressions you make in the second Number of him who answered the Papers give him leave if not to be the adversary herein yet to differ from you and to think himself to be one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England Neither did you intend by courteous and respective words to draw him to your opinion Soft words alone will not do it but soft words with hard arguments may do more When we see a clear demonstration of truth it is no courtesie to yeild assent for the Understanding cannot refuse Truth when it doth shew it selfe But whether the Reply as you speak be as clear a demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter let me have the liberty and the civility if in these businesses it hath any place not to determine Only it is very hard to say who doth optimum quod sic as they speak the best of the kinde Yet also wise men may think that if there can be nothing more expected towards ths defence of your first position the cause is wanting to it And certainly such a wise man and ingenuous as you be will not content himselfe with any ascertainment but that which is absolute and uncapable of Error Therefore not to deceive you by your own commendations put it to issue bring it to the test try the debate betwixt us by this rule of Wisdome and Conscience also Tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum It is certain that the Scripture is Infallible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is Infallible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the Rule and Ground and Cause of Faith As for the good designe you mention here and in your Title to guide Souls redeemed by Christ to the happy Eternity I congratulate to you that desire but I am sorry that such a zeal is better then the way you lead them in Assuredly those Souls redeemed by the Blood of Christ may and shall come to happinesse without any Infallible Judge of Controversies on Earth For first those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture matters of question we are in no such danger by the ignorance of reserving a purpose not to contradict what we shall be convinced in on either part Secondly We may be directed in these points by Judges though not Infallible as unto the quiet of the Church Thirdly Untill your Infallible Judge appears to be truly such it is the best way not to be bound intuitively to his dictates for then we might be in possibility of being bound to believe an errour which is repugnant to the understanding Ex natura rei So that until you make good the Title of an infallible Judge whom as you say we are obliged under pain of damnation not to disbelieve I shall hold up my hand onely in admiration of your confidence And whilest you do demonstrate this that we are bound under pain of damnation not to disbelieve this Judge of yours You say you do demonstrate your former Position that the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church is the ground of our Faith So you yes because you say that the Catholique Church is the infallible Judge To this thus Is it the infallible Judge whereunto we are bound to submit our understandings in all things or not if in all things then we cannot believe what the Scripture saith in plain points without the proposal of the Church which now seems contrary to your mind if not in all things but onely whether the Scripture be the Word of God or in cases of Controversie then do you now go lesse then in your former paper against the nature of implicite Faith Secondly that the authority of the Church is not it upon which we resolvedly rest our Faith of the Scripture or the determination of Controversies we shall see when you come to it Thirdly what do you mean by the Church do you understand it formally of the people or representatively in an Assembly of the Pastors if you mean it of the people also how is infallibility vested in them Are we bound to stand to their judgement and they are to be in obedience to their Pastors Well then it must be understood of their Pastors What of all or most or one If of all when did they all Vote if of most when did most Vote If of one ordinary Pastor with or in a General Council then remember whensoever in your sense you name a Church it be so taken of the Pope and his Council General which yet you will not evince to be infallible by their authority If they were infallible they must be infallible by the Word of God as to us and then that again is the first ground of Faith and also secondly you will find that many priviledges which you have spoken of as to the Church do not belong to the Church Representative strictly but to all the people of the Church as invisible which as such comes not into this Controversie If then you come again in any discourse keep you within and to the bounds of the question and speak of the authority of the Church in the same sense as to be the ground of Faith Divine in all points or in the same particulars For if you proceed from the Churches being the ground of faith as towards the Scripture to be the Word of God To conclude that therefore it is the ground of faith indefinitely or universally you commit the fallacy à dicto secundum quid as also if you proceed from its being the ground of Faith in points of Controversie to the being the ground of Faith in all things the discourse hath the same fault And yet you say that in your progresse you leave nothing of concernment in my reply unanswered and also that you conclude contradictorily to me Sir Let me here
credibility to arise The Scripture doth with competent clearnesse furnish us against damnative error and the Church doth no more as you give us to understand at the end of this your Treatise and why then should we leave the Scripture which is acknowledged Infallible to go to the Church and what need then of an Infallible Judge what for Peace and Unity Then fourthly we say that the Decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto Peace Though their judgement cannot ingage undisputed assent yet their power they have from Christ doth require reverence and undisturbance in the difference It requires subscription if we see no cause of dissenting and if we do subjection to the censure All the authoritie of the world can go no further with us unlesse we might be hypocrites in differing by an outward act from our inward act of belief And yet wherein have we divided out accords from the former General Councils And therefore why are we charged with this Indictment as if we were opposite to the authoritie of the truly Catholique Church yet if we did differ without Opposition we keep the peace of the Church without question And that we must differ until we see God speaking believe his reason that said Omnis creata veritas c. All created veritie is defectible unlesse as it is rectified by the increased veritie Wherefore the assent neither to the Testimonie of Men or Angels doth infallibly lead into Truth save onely so far as they see the Testimonie of God speaking in them So then the assent of Faith is onely under obedience to him speaking And if you say that God doth speak in General Councils as he doth speak in his Word written prove it Yea how then will you avoyd blasphemie For doth God speak Contradictions For so one Council hath contradicted another And to use your own argument we are bound to submit our judgement onely to those who can judge of the inward act for so you distinguish betwixt temporal Judges and others but God only can judge of our internal acts therefore we must submit our assents onely to him and therefore to others no further then they speak according to him So that we cannot absolutely adhere to whatsoever is said in Councils which have erred Jewish and Christian too Now then you may think I spoke reason in my respects to General Councils without your unlimited subjection of Faith And therefore your admiration in the beginning of the 5 th page of this Paper which is grounded upon your interpretation of thaâ— of Esay is as unnecessarie And that absurditie which you would infer upon my Opinion that the wisest men in the world are most likely to erre this way by which he may in his interiour judgement go quite contrarie to all Christendome hath little in it out noise For first you suppose hereupon an infallible Judge upon earth which is the Question Secondly the wisest man is not most likely to erre if it be lawful to dissent from Universal councils because as such he is most apt to discern what is defined according to Truth what not Thirdly what think you of Saint Athanasius who differed in his judgement and profession too from most of Christendome then about the Divinitie of the Sonne Fourthly the Rule of Scripture is equally infallible and those who are wise if they prepare themselves for the search of Truth they are likely not to erre for if they go by the Rule they cannot erre because it is infallible But those who goe by the Church may erre because for ought is yet proved it is not infallible and those who are fools may by Scripture be made wise unto salvation And to this purpose the Scripture which is very sublime and heavenly in the matter yet is simple and plain and low in the manner of deliverie that those who are of meaner capacitie might hereby he sufficiently directed to life and salvation Therefore doe not tell me but prove to me that the Church is infallible and that you are the onely Church or else you do nothing but with fooles whom you find or make to goe your way In your next lines you do discharge me of singularitie in my Opinion For it appears by you that all but Roman Catholiques are of the same perswasion All but Roman Catholiques you say As if none were Catholiques but either of your Nation or of your Religion The first is a contradiction and the second is a falsitie for there were many Catholiques which were not of your Religion in those Points wherein we differ By the Fathers of the Church those were accounted Catholiques which withstood the plea of Faustinus the Popes Legate in the Carthaginian Council when he falsified the Nicene Canon of subjection to the Roman Bishop whereof no such copie could be found They were Catholiques who determined against Appeals to Rome who determined equal priviledges of other Churches to the Bishop of Rome They were Catholiques who held not Transubstantiation nor Purgatory nor your use of Images nor your Sacrament under one kind nor your other Sacraments as of proper Name nor Indulgencies And they were Catholiques who held that which you doe not hold as the Millenarie Opinion and Infant Communion And therefore to follow you the desperate consequence which you charge us with if we do not come over to your way flowes not from your premises unlesse you can make out an infallible assistance of your See and that this is by God appointed for our necessarie passage to salvation and the way promised in the Prophet Esay Nay if the people should be left for their guidance to the unanimous consent of the whole Church in points of Faith here would be a desperate consequence for I hope they were more like to finde the Articles of Faith in the leaves of Scripture which as to these is plain then in the perusal and collection of all the judgements of all the Fathers of all ages every where according to the rule of Lyrinensis or if we take the depositions of the Fathers in those properties which he describeth such whereby we are to be ruled that they must be holy Men wise Men they must hold the Catholick Faith and Communion they must persist in their Doctrine they must persist in it unto Death in the same sense as in the 39. Chapter against Heresies If you do not take the consent of the Church according to these circumstances you differ from him If you do how shall the poor people through all those labyrinths see the right way of wholsome Doctrine when who knows how many of them did not write at all How many of those who wrote were not such How many works of those who were such are to us perished How many bastard pieces are fathered on them How many of their writings corrupted How many or how few have touched upon our differences having not occasion by adversaries How many have differed from one another How
many have differed from themselves Is then this the way that fools cannot erre If wise men go this way surely this is their first errour that they go this way wherein nothing is found but perplexities and unsatisfiednesse Neither can they soberly raise the credit of their Doctrine by prime descent without interruption from the Apostolique age if all be well considered Such a confidence let me give a check to by application of a storie A Christian Prince was much seduced by a kind of men who professed a vast Art of giving a certain account of many Ages before and a trifling Courtier perceiving his humour made him believe that his Pedegree in antient race of Royal Blood might be fetched from Noah's Ark wherewith he being greatly delighted forthwith laid aside all businesse and gave himself to the search of the thing so earnestly that he suffered none to interrupt him whosoever no not Embassadours which were sent to him about most weighty affairs Many marvelled hereat but none durst speak their mind till at length his Cook whom he used sometimes as his Fool told him that the thing he went about was nothing for his honour for now saith he I worship your Majestie as a God but if we go once to Noahs Arke we must there your self and I both be akinne This the Storie which is so long that it reacheth you from top to toe for you would by a verie long series derive your authoritie as it were from Noahs Arke which you think represents your Church out of which there is no salvation You would run it up from verie many successions to the times of the Apostles and nothing will content you but this ancient Original You lay aside all other proofs in comparison of this succession not so much of Doctrine indeed as of Church Embassadours that are sent to you with Scripture you will not hear unlesse your Church may have the power of Interpretation infallibly in your own cause But let some of the Popes servants whom he makes his Fools inform him that that which he goes about is little for his Honour for now they worship him as a God but if they come to the times of the Apostles there will be found no such distance betwixt him and others and consanguinitie of Doctrine as it is expressed will be able to disinherit your points of difference formerly named with invocation of Saints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where doe we finde them Where may we read them Therefore urge not Antiquitie unlesse Truth goes along with it on your side and do not any more strain the consent of ages for Doctrines which as we may speak will be out of breath long before they come to that mightie height of the Apostolique time As for your instance of Saint Cyprian erring by perswasion of that which he held to be Scripture and St. Austins Crisis of his errour I Answer First You see here Saint Cyprian a Prime Doctor of the Church did then ground his Opinion upon Scripture without recourse to Tradition And this makes for us that he thought it no injurie to the Church to varie from what was held or practised upon respect to Scripture He undertook to think and doe otherwise then Christendome then in the point of Rebaptization and yet was not accused as an Heretique Secondly He erred groslie and yet not dangerouslie because he held his Opinion without malignance to the Church and so may we without peril of salvation And if you say the case is different betwixt him and us because that point wherein he went not with the Church was not then defined by a Council We answer what shall we say then of the times in the Church before there was any Council and therefore in those times the Rule of Faith and Action was without a Council and therefore this answer doth not satisfie or they were ruled only by Scripture which may satisfie you Thirdly He erred not in the substance of the Act when he pleaded Scripture but in the misapplication of Scripture to that case and therefore this Argument comes to the fallacie of accident and this makes no prejudice against Scripture which in it self is contrary to errour without defectibilitie and therefore he that indeed follows Scripture cannot erre because it is Infallible So cannot we say of the Church for ought yet we see by your Discourse Fourthly This makes no more disadvantage to the prerogative of Scripture then that the Pelagians for their Opinions urged the Testimonies of the Fathers which caused Saint Austin to make an Apologie for them Vobis Pelagianis when you Pelagians were not yet born the Fathers spake more securely namely of the power of nature Nay surely it makes a great deal lesse for the Father if in this he had followed the Fathers whom the Bitagians quoted had erred not by his Interpretation of them but it seems by their inconfideratenesse But we cannot charge Scripture with any such fault and therefore Saint Cyprian erred by misinterpretation And here also by the way we see how fallible a rule is the consent of the Fathers since if Saint Austin had ordered his belief thereby he had been overtaken with Pelagianisme Now as for Saint Austins crisis concerning this of Saint Cyprian that if he had lived to see the Determination of a plenary Council he would for his great humilitie and charitie straightway have yielded and preferred the General Council before his judgement to this besides what we now said about the undefinednesse of it by a Council we say It is like he would have yielded and this yet accrews not unto your cause much For first Saint Austin sayes for his great humilitie and charitie he would have yielded And this manner of Expression you may perceive doth abstract from a necessitie of duty Under bond of Duty these vertues have no freedome He was so humble of mind that he would have thought better of them he was so charitable that for this he would have offended none in this case but doth this infer that he was bound in conscience to sink his Opinion in the authoritie of their Definition No no. Humilitie and Charitie have in them no formalitie influxive unto Faith for this is seated in the understanding but to peace Therefore this yielding of his supposed upon the Case would have onely concerned his person as not to have opposed here not his judgement as if this should necessarily have been overcome by their Authority For the person may be bound when the Conscience cannot be bound so may the person yield as to the omission of opposite acts when the understanding yet keeps its former due apprehension Secondly this businesse of Saint Cyprian is such as is a matter of practice not clearly decided by Scripture but this avails not to an universal conclusion of ruling our faith by the Church which although you at the beginning did seem to wave yet here would in your discourse insinuate and wind in The summe of
the Pope to be head of the Universal Church and therefore are they not compared ad idem Thirdly Is it determined in Scripture whether the Pope be Head of the Church or not You say it is for if you say it is not you are all lost Well if it be determined by Scripture then consequently it is determined in Scripture that the King is not and so this your Controversie is one of those which is decided and concluded negatively in or by Scripture So this exception against us doth not thrive Another point of this kind you make in your eleventh Number about the Canon of Scripture your Argument seems to be thus that we should know the Canon is necessary we do not know it by Scripture therefore by the Church Is it not thus you cannot make your matter shorter without any detriment to you And therefore we answer first as at first which you give us the occasion to put you in mind of that if the Church were Infallible Judge of all Canonical books yet would it not follow from hence that it should be Infallible Judge in all points of Faith and Manners which you would fain have as very â—seful for you unlesse caâ—â—ally for we might suppose more assistance to the Church in this particular then in other cases since also when that is made sure that there are the books of Scripture we should look for no other directions for Life and Salvation but this Therefore if you argue that because it is Judge Infallible of Canonical books it is Judge of all matters you do not rightly proceed from a particular You are in that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore you do not conclude in your first Universality Secondly We are not to be assured by Divine Faith that there are Canonical books from the authority of the Church and therefore is not the Church the Infallible Judge herein We must beleeve them to be Canonical by their own Authority otherwise we shall never believe them to be so so that you see we deny the Assumption and we say we may know the Canonical books by Scripture we have no other Divine Authority to know them by They bear witnesse of themselves they carry their own light which we may see them by as we see the Sun by its own light For let me put you to this Dilemma either the Scripture is to be believed for it self or the Church is to be believed for it self If the Scripture be to be believed for it self then have we our cause if the Church be to be believed for it self then must we know this by a Revelation beside Scripture which your Bellarmine disputes against in the beginning of his Controversies and whether that Revelation be not Anabaptistical and more uncertain then the word of God judge you And I pray is it not more fiâ— that the Scripture should be believed in its own cause then the Church but if you say that the Authority of the Church is evidenced by Scripture concerning it then that is to be believed for itself as towards the Church and why not then other parts of it Thirdly If the Church be the Judge Infallible of Canonical books how came Saint Hierome to be repugnant to the Church in the debate about Books Apocryphal as you know and may see by your Bellarmin in his second Book De verbo Dei cap. 9. amongst which Apocryphal books the Maccabees are numbred to be by him accounted such and therefore Saint Jerome did not in his Latin Edition translate them and then let S. Jerom's authority justifie Lâ—ther upon your principles for you account the Maccabees to be as well Canonical as you and we do the Apocalyps That the Scripture is silent of its own Canon and that we cannot prove a book to be infallibly Canonical by it self without begging the question hath litle of iudiciousness in it for how do we see light how do we prove first and indemonstrable principles how do we prove that which we apprehend by natural light after this manner is the understanding irradiated to see the authority of Scripture in it and by it well and how do we prove the Church to be infallible by it without begging the question therefore you must come about to Scripture And again if you prove the Church to be infallible Judge herein because the Scripture is not you beg the question who are to dispute not I who am to answer Your twelfth number goes upon a false supposition at least in part of it namely that we are bound to believe that the Gospel of Saint Matthew was written by him as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark We deny it We are bound indeed to believe that the Gospel of St. Matthew and St. Mark as we distinguish them are the word of God but we are not bound to believe that they were written by them It is no part or duty of my faith to believe the Penman of any part of Scripture save onely so far as it is declared in the body of Scripture for it is not Scripture because Saint Matthew wrote it but Saint Matthew wrote it as being inspired that it was the word of God in the matter of it If then your discourse goes upon the matter of it it was answered before if upon the title it is not allowed to be de fide or any point of faith that such was writer of any piece of Scripture And whereas you urge that some have denied this Gospel and some or other have denied other books to be Canonical how then shall we end this Controversie or others about the Canon by Scripture I answer And do not Hereticks deny your Church to be infallible will you therefore quit your opinion So then either this argument is not good against us or it is also good against you Secondly If Hereticks reject some books we may be disposed by the authority of the Catholick Church to our faith of them by their own authority And this seems to be as much as Saint Austin would have us to attribute to the Church in this particular as we have his advice in his second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 8. where he says in Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam-plurimum sequatur authoritatem In Canonical Scriptures let him very much follow the authority of the Catholick Churches amonst which surely these are they which merited if you will construe it so to have Apostolick seats and to receive Apostolick Epistles Observe that he saith let him follow the authoritie very much which doth not conclude that we should wholly rely upon it and of the Catholick Churches in the plural not one only Then there are more Catholick Churches in his judgement and such are they which merited to have Apostolick Seas and Epistles then your Church onely is not to be called the Apostolique Sea And whereas afterward in this Church he doth reckon Apocryphall Books yet is
it to be noted that herein he followed the authoritie of the Churches Notwithstanding which Saint Jerome as before did not receive them which makes a sufficient reason to hold that the authority of the Churches is not a sufficient ground of faith in the belief of Canonical Books or else St. Jerome who in this may be compared with St. Austin for his judgement is in the same condemnation with us Afterwards you plead that since the Gospel of S. Matthew was written in Hebrew whereof there is not extant any one Copy in the world and it is not certain who or how faithfully he did translate it we cannot be certain by the Scripture that this is the word of God therefore by the Church This I think is the sum of your plea. We answer First Again we do not disclaim the use of the Catholique Churches in the credence of the Word of God but this doth not certifie us Secondly You Catholiques as you would be called speak largely that not one of the Ancients conceived it to be written in Greek surely all the Ancients did not write surely all that did write are not now had But take it of all that did write and are now extant and put it to be so that all were of Saint Jeromes Opinion in his Preface upon Saint Matthew yet all that you say is not certainly true that there is not a Copy of the Hebrew Gospel extant in all the world For not to speak of the Hebrew Gospels set out by Munster and Mercer which Ludovicus de Dieu takes notice of in the Preface to his Notes upon the Gospels if you will give any heed to your Isidor Clarius he will tell you I suppose otherwise when he saith in a little Preface which is a Testimonie out of Saint Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastick writers that St. Jerome there affirms ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodiè in Casariensi Bibliotheca which Pamphilus the Martyr studiosissimè confecit and that he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans who in Beroea City of Syria do use this volume to describe it So he Now it may be that remains there and therefore you cannot be certain of what you say And this is more then an ordinary Authority of the Church in an interpretation Again how come your Latin interpretation of this Gospel to be authentique if it was not taken out of an authentick copie for the Church can doe no more then declare that which is authentique then must it be authentique otherwise they make Scripture Again let me give you one intimation that possibly so might yet at first be written in Greek my reason is this in the first of Saint Matthew 23. verse it is said of Christ they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is God with us If it were written in Ebrew what need of any interpretation in the same Language since the Letters of the Word put together without any variation do make that signification Again if the Church hath made the Greek Translation authentique why is your Latin made authentique Is there two authentiques If it be not authentique by the Church what would you infer Again the harmony of it with other Gospels hath more in it to perswade Faith then the credit of the Church Again if it be an Interpretation yet unlesse you do evince it that we do build our Faith upon the Interpretation you do nothing Now then as your people do fix their Faith upon that which is interpreted not up-upon the interpretation so may we build our belief upon this Gospel to be the Word of God by the illumination of the Spirit of God and yet not upon the Translation The Translation doth but conveigh unto our knowledge the words but it is the Spirit of God that doth work in us belief thereof that it is the VVord of God The Translation attends the Notification of the object what that is which is to be believed but it is the Divine perswasion which attends the act and is the cause why it is believed the Interpretation is but the Instrument of Faith the ground of it is the perswasion of God that it is the Truth and VVord of God and therefore your argumentation goes upon a wrong supposition as if we resolved our Faith in the Translation as such And what you except afterwards against the certainty of our Faith upon the account of the Greek Translation doth also return easily upon you for the same possibility of error is urged against your Latin either by ignorance or negligence or on purpose for the upholding of your new opinions And let me ask you why you account your Latin to be Authentique you will say because the Church of Rome was infallibly assisted in it VVas it then Infallibly assisted when it renders the Ebrew in Genesis ipsa for ipsum that it might be for the honour of the Virgin VVell but give it that the Latin was infallibly made by the Church why not the Greek also infallibly made by the Church and more confirmed by the Church then your Latin one you get nothing then by this exception And this may satisfie you how a Manichaan might believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew which you put to the question An opinion thereof he may have by the judgement of the Church some knowledge of it to be the Word of God he may gather by the agreement with the other Gospels but the Faith of it to be such is to be wrought by the Spirit of God whereby those who heard the Apostles were caused to believe that which they preached to be the Word of God without perswasion of the Church which was not then in a body when some first believed As for the Fathers holding Books to be Canonical by the Church we have spoken to already in this paper and we shall meet with it again You speak indeed of them as in general upon designe ad faciendum populum but you do not name the places onely Saint Athanasius you are pleased to quote VVe answer if you mean that he received the Gospels and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas upon the Authority of the Church as the cause of his Faith of them you do not prove it by what he saies If you mean that he was induced to think well of them by the reception of the Church and to refuse the other by their refusal this doth not come home to the question And suppose the Church its refusal of the Gospel of Saint Thomas was sufficient for him to refuse it too yet doth it not follow that because the Church did receive the other Gospels he received them no otherwise then because they did for this makes the reception of the ChurCh to be but as a necessary condition not the formal cause of his Faith As for Tertullians and Saint Jeroms and St. Austins authorities in this case we shall finde an answer when you quote the places The Testimony of Eusebius which you produce
as out of the third Book chap. 19. is not there according to that of Robert Steven in Greek which came out Lutetiae Parisiorum cum Privilegio Regis In the ninth Chapter indeed of the same Book there is somewhat of Josephus that he gives the number of the Books of the Old Testament and which are uncontradicted by the Ebrews in the same words by them teaching as out of antient Tradition But here we have but Josephus his opinion Secondly This is but for the Old Testament not the whole Scripture Thirdly This is but as out of Tradition Fourthly You will not find in the next chapter all your Apocryphal books The Number he makes to be 22. in which Number Cyril of Jerusalem in his fourth Cat. excludes all but Baruch Fifthly After so much time which is past he saies no man durst add or take away or change any of them And that which he speaks at the end of the chapter that he followed Tradition and therefore did not erre if you mean that it is not pertinent for he doth not there speak of Scripture Your flourish then as hereupon must yet vanish And besides all signes are not able to make a certainty the Tradition of the Church is not an evident signe it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Church received some things and held them too which you will not hold as Infant Communion and the Millenary Opinion therefore can we not be assured in way of Faith wherein there is no falsity by the Church That of Saint Austin will be included in the disquisition of the main Testimony of that Epistle And to your question which of the Fathers when they were asked did answer that they did believe the Canonical Books upon our ground that which was said in the former paper of Saint Origen and Saint Athanasius remains good untill it be answered In your thirteenth Number you object Luthers not seeing the Apocalyps and the Epistle of Saint James to be Canonical by their own light VVe answer First A negative argument from one is easily denyed to be cogent when we cannot yeild it to the Church because he did not see them therefore they could not be seen is no argument Secondly You see then hereby that we do not follow him in all things blindely as you do the Church in whatsoever it proposeth Secondly The Apocalyps was doubted of by others also as you know by Ecclesiastical history although now it is universally received So also might Luther afterwards come to the sight of them to be Canonical And Thirdly also other books have been scrupled notwithstanding the authority of the Church and therefore how is that a ground of their Faith Saint Austin you make use of afterwards for the Canonicalnesse of the Macchabees upon the credit of the Council of Carthage and also the book of Wisdome To this we need say no more then hath been said save onely we may hence observe how uncertain we are of a ground of Faith in the authority of the Fathers when one sayes that which is contrary to the other Answer you Saint Jerome upon the point as before And Saint Jerome I hope yet was a Catholick and was not damned because he did not embrace the opinion of the Church in this If the Church be Infallible to Saint Austin why not to Saint Jerome or one may see that which is Infallible and the other not then is your former objection thereby taken away And you will hold Saint Austin no otherwise to have held the Macchabees to be Canonical then he held the book of Wisedome to be Canonical and you will hold that the Council of Carthage held the book of Maccabees to be Canonical as Saint Austin held the book of Wisedome to be Canonical This I suppose you will agree to without dispute Well then be pleased to take notice of what abatements and deductings may be found in Saint Austin upon the place in regard of Equalitie of Respect which you think he gave to this book of Wisedome and to Canonical Scripture First it seems there was exception taken at the authority of that book even in their Opinion of St. Austins judgement thereupon and therefore he saith Quasi excepta c. As if if this attestation were excepted the thing it self were not clear which we will have from hence to be taught namely this he was taken away that wickednesse might not alter his understanding which Saint Cyprian he saith had taken out of the book of Wisedome And when he had discoursed the Truth of the sentence he inferrs which things being so this sentence of the Book of Wisedome ought not to be rejected which hath merited to be read of those who are of the degree of Readers of the Church by so long antiquitie and then follow your words Onely you may excuse me if secondly I be a little critical for it is not said there that it was received of all but it was heard of all with veneration of Divine Authoritie If there be no difference why doe ye not use the word if you do falsifie then it seems there is some difference and outwardly they might give respect to it as Canonical although whether in their apprehensions they did esteem it as such may be a question But thirdly you see it here to be somewhat distinguished from Books Canonical and to depend upon prescription as if it were not so from the beginning Fourthly those who were Tractatours next to the time of the Apostles did prefer this book before themselves which using this as a witnesse did believe that they brought no other then a Divine Testimony So the Father whereby is intimated that this was as deutero Canonical as it is expressed and not of proper name Canonical and also herein is signified that it was not so used in the Apostles times And again this Book had merited to be read by so great a numerositie of years and afterwards he calls this sentence anciently Christian So upon the whole matter you see some difference made betwixt this book and others by themselves Canonical De Predestinatione Sancto rum cap. 14. Peruse then the whole chapter and you will see how little advantage you can make thereof Indeed there is in the chapter a word which I know not whether I have rendred according to your mind it is mereri and yet I think I have interpreted it discreetly by meriting that so it might be capable of the same Latitude but I put you to your choice How the Fathers use the word you know for obtaining But if you will have it here to be construed by plain deserving then we have an Argument against you For if the book deserved to be read in the Church then was it not accounted as Divine and Canonical because it was received by the Church but it was received by the Church because it did deserve it by the matter If you will not understand it here of plain deserving then
here is one place where the Father useth the words not in the Roman sence which may be made use of to another pupose about your opinion of merit and also if you will not mean it here of deserving this makes some diminution of respect to the book and some advantage more I shall make of this chapter in its place Many lines in your fourteenth page you have afterwards wherein we have nothing but vaunts or repetitions I will not trouble you with the latter nor my self with the former But towards the end of that page you would order the matter so as to hold your own and yet to give Scripture its due respects And you seem to bring it to this determination that when there is an acknowledgement made that the Scriptures are in themselves the Word of God it doth not derogate from Scripture to hold that yet they are not known to us by an infallible ground that they are the Word of God but by the testimony of the Church which in shorter terms is expressed by others of your Church that the authoritie of the Scripture doth depend upon the Church But this will not serve the covering is too short For first this distinction is too narrow to extend to the difference betwixt us in particular points of faith Therefore if you will yield that points of Religion are to be examined and ended infallibly by Scripture when we know it to be the Word of God then we will onely stick to this Question But if you will still maintain the infallibilitie of the Church in all her definitions then your composition will not be sufficient although it could satisfie as to that particular But secondly It will not satisfie because you do not sufficiently provide for the honour of the Scriptures authoritie and therefore you derogate from Scripture in this although you did take away no honour from Scripture as in regard of its truth Do you lay it to heart that the many questions betwixt us is about the authoritie of the Scripture the formal Reason of credibilitie is the authoritie That which makes me to believe it to be the Truth of God as being his Word is the Authoritie For if the credibilitie doth rise from the truth of it in it self you destroy your own cause for that you confesse the Scripture to be the infallible Word of God then betwixt us simply about the Truth of the Scripture there is no contest And doe not you affirm that the authoritie of the Church is the Ground of Faith because you think that the Church by its authoritie is worthy to be believed since it is infallible But why then do you not grant this authority to the Scripture since you confess it to be infallible If the reason of believing the Church be the infallibility of it according to you why is not the infallibility of the Scripture the reason of believing it since it is confessed infallible And if you say you do believe it to be so by the authority of the Church then the formal reason of believing it is not the infallibility of the Scripture but of the Church and yet the infallibility of the Church shall be the formal reason of believing it But you say you must know the Scripture to be infallible that I cannot do but by the Church Well but do not you then see that you preferre the authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture for the Church with you is to be believed for it self for so it must be or else the Scripture must be believed for it self or else we shall have in Divinity no principium primo primum wherein to rest Now if the Scripture be to be believed for it self then we have ended the businesse If the Church be to be believed for it self then we prefer the Authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture then you derogate from the authority of Scripture Thirdly the Church hath authority or not It hath you say then of it self or not what will you say If of it self what hath a company of Christians more to say for themselves then others If you say the authority comes from succession others also have had a constant succession And it must come to one first society Well where had that society its authority of it self or not If of it self what by revelation beside Scripture or not If beside then the charge of Anabaptisticalness is fallen upon you What then From Scripture Well then the Scripture in regard of those Texts which concern the Church is to be believed for it self and then why not in others Fourthly The Word of God in the substance and matter of it was before the Church therefore because the Church was begotten by it and therefore it must be known before the Church Yea reconcile your Opinion with that of Bellarmine in his first Book De Verbo Dei cap. 20. The Rule of Catholique Faith must be certain and known for if it be not known then it will not be a Rule to us If it be not certain it cannot be a Rule If it be a known Rule against Anabaptists why not also a known Rule against Papists and therefore that it must be made manifest by the Church is not necessary for how was it made manifest to the first Church to be the rule As for the instance of yours that Christ was made manifest to many by the Testimony of the Baptist and of the Apostles before the Scriptures were written and yet this derogate not from Scripture We answer soon First It is yet to be proved whether the Church hath that inspiration as John Baptist and the Apostles had for the first planting of the Church until that be made good your Argumentation is not Secondly Although the New Testament was not written the Old was and Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles preached no other Doctrine then was contained in the Old So our Saviour If ye had believed Moses ye would have believed me for he wrote of me in the 5. of Saint Iohn the 46. verse Thirdly If Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles were believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church as the first Disciples did why may not the Scriptures be believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church If the Apostles were believed immediately without the Church in what they said why may they not be believed also in what they wrote And surely to goe a little more close and deep if we speak properly there is not so much a ground of Faith as a cause if with the Schoolmen we grant as we may that Faith is a supernatural habit infused by God which disposeth the understanding to assert that which is said by God is true because he saith it not because the Church saith it And if you say that the Scripture and the Church are not opposite true when the Church ruleth it self by Scripture But if the Question be which proposal is
first that of the Scripture or that of the Church here the Church is opposite to Scripture if it pretend to be first for both cannot be first Therefore the first Axiom in Divinity and consequently of Divine Faith must be that the Scripture is the Word of God and then this Scripture is substracted as the ground of all particulars to be necessaririly believed and therefore if we should have no other Faith of Scripture then by the credibility of the Church for ought is yet proved we should have no Divine Faith In your 14. Number you go about to prove that the Scripture is not the appointed Judge in all Controversies For many things you say are so set down in Scripture that almost all the Controversies which are in the Church doe arise about the true interpretation of the Scripture We Answer First here we see that you would have more to be the question then that Whether the Church be the judge of the Books Canonical and that the Scripture is the VVord of God Therefore we follow you and do say Secondly That it seems then the Question is onely who should be the infallible Judge to discusse and decide the debates which do arise about the sense of Scripture So then again those things which are plainly set down in Scripture as the many necessary things are are allowed to be believed without the voice of the Church and therefore all points of Faith you cannot it seems include within the compass of necessary submission to the Church therein Thirdly your discourse proceeds not effectually to your conclusion unlesse you can prove that the uncertainty of the sense of some passages in Scripture doth convince the necessity of an infallible Judge herein Secondly That we are infallibly certain thereof And Thirdly That the Church of Rome is it These particulars are yet depending and without their affirmation we may affirm that God hath well enough provided for the salvation of men in the Scripture which is more easie to be understood then the universal consent of all the Fathers whose Opinions also must be held true as they are agreeable to the Rule And also hath he provided wisely for us in that he hath not left us to the Lesbian Rule of humane authority and also hath provided for the peace of the Church in that he hath given us direction of the Pastours whom although we cannot absolutely believe yet doe not impudently oppose Yet you will say if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge infallible you mean otherwise you doe not contradict me in all controversies he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly this importing so exceedingly as it doth and yet he hath not done so We answer Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures in that he saith ye erre not knowing the Scriptures as before In that he said by Saint Paul that all Scripture is given by Inspiration and is profitable c. and that it is able to make the man of God wise unto salvation as before And by Saint Peter 2. Ep. 1. cap. 19. we have a more sure word of Prophesie to which you do well giving heed as to a Light that shineth in a dark place untill the Day dawn and the Day-star arise in your hearts And as for Pastours of the Church again and again we say we deny them not a lawful use or to them a lawful respect in things of God but they doe but carry the Lantern in the dark So that by this Light of Scripture are we directed unto salvation Secondly We turn the mouth of your Argument against you if Christ had intended that the Church should have been the infallible Judge it importing so exceedingly he would have told us so clearly and infallibly which he hath not done He telleth us all Scripture is given by inspiration and this Proposition if we rightly believe we believe upon its own authority because it was given by inspiration but it is not as clearly said that the Church judgeth by inspiration And if it doth why doth it not determine all Controversies in the Church and therefore is it either wanting in ability or peccant in duty Or if there may be Controversies in your Church without definition of the Church why may not there be Controversies amongst us without actual decision of Scripture And now Sirs let me have leave to speak affectionately to you do you not see what dis-respects of Scripture if not Blasphemies your Opinion doth miserably betray you to if you follow it Would any sober man let fall such words as if God had intended the Scripture for our Judge such a book as the Scripture is So you VVhy which often times speaks so prophetically that most would think he speaks of the time present when he speaks of the time to come So you First how are these words put together so Prophetically that c. would it seem to be more Propheticall to speak under the formality of futurition but if it be Prophetical to speak of that which is to come as in verbis de praesens then what can you blame in that part of Scripture which is Prophetical Or do you think that it was not meet that in the Old Testament there should be somewhat Prophetical Or will you think that God made that part of Scripture on purpose obscure that there might be need of your Infallible Judge Secondly The Prophecies are not expressed in the Present Tense which in proper the Jewes have not but in the time past to signifie the certainty of their accomplishment and also because as with God they are already done since he looks upon all differences of time with one single act of intuition and as for those Prophecies which respect Christ they are so expressed that thereby may be signified that the merit of Christ did extend to some even before the times wherein those particular promises were made and therefore the manner of Prophetical expressions is upon good reason easily discerned if not by the people yet by the Ministers of the Church without an Infallible Judge And what then if it speaks of Christ under the Type of David when not onely the Letter signifies a thing but the thing another thing and one person represents another Is not this for the excellency of Scripture without such obscurity when we believe David was a Prophet and â—hose which spoke of him were Prophets and when we are in Scripture directed to such an use of Types And if any thing be spoken obscurely yet if it be a matter necessary there are other Texts more easie to compare it with and to expound it by as your Aquinas in his first Page 1. q. 9 10. Articles And therefore this exception is not able to argue the necessity of your Infallible Judge no more then diversity as you say of senses of Scripture wherein it is to be understood
to the Pontificians who assert the Government of the Church to be Monarchical by Christs Institution for if part of the authority be in the General Council then is it not all in one the Pope Or if the Council be called onely ad Consilium and they have no Votes decisive how doth this agree to all the former Councils wherein they had authority of Vote and he may determine without them as to advise since he determins without them in the authority and suppose they advise him to let them have power of Vote he can yet determine against them Fifthly How many Councils have been opposite to one another In which or with which did not the Pope erre The Nicene and that of Ariminum as before decreed contrarily one for the Arrians the former against them which did not erre and yet if neither had did ever any of the ancient Councils determine of their own infallibility And what think you of Nazianzens Opinion about Councils in his Epistle to Procopius the 42. Shall I tell you it I have no mind to derogate from General Councils but if you would have me tell you his judgement it is in such words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I am thus affected as to shun all meetings of Bishops if I must speak the truth for I never saw any Good end of a Synod nor that had an end of the Evils more then an addition Nay did not the Bishop of Bitâ—nto break out into these words in the face of the Council at Trent I would that with one consent we had not altogether declined from Religion to superstition from Faith unto infidelitie from Christ unto Antichrist from God to Epicurus Did he not say so And this may serve for your Answer to all the rest of this your Paragraph We cannot think it strange that the definition of a General Council should be fallible until you bring forth your strong reasons to induce my assent that such assistance was ever promised to a General Council as the Apostles and Prophets had or that any General Council had such assistance or that there was the same reason of such assistance And to say no more of this point measure the infallibility of the Trent Council by the determinations thereof in things of Religion and see how they agree with Scripture which you say is a rule of Faith and by this Argument be you judge of the infallible Judge Let us not see your Opinions by infallibility which you pretend but do you see your infallibility by the determinations it did put forth namely such wherein we differ and therefore I need not name them In the 22. Paragraph we have recapitulation and a passage of Luther which you use as an Argument ad hominem We Answer you do then hereby give us occasion to shew our ingenuity to truth that as we follow him and any other with it so we will not follow others or him without it But secondly If this book was written after his recession from the Church of Rome it is not meant of the Roman Church but of the Catholique Church which yet he doth not here compare with the Scripture but with a private man which seems to be spoken against Enthusiasts Neither doth he say that it is not lawful to doubt of the Church that whatsoever it saith is true but that it hath the Revelation of the Father to wit because it hath the revealed Word of God with it Or that the undoubtednesse of it doth not belong to it per se but per aliud because it hath for its priviledge the Revelation of Scripture And thus it maketh not for you Now this brings on your forecited passage of Saint Paul to Tim. 1.3.15 Where the Church of God is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth And you aske May not men rely securely upon the pillar of Truth May they not ground themselves assuredly on the ground of Truth no ground being surer ground and more infallible then the ground of Truth it self So you Supposing the words read according to this way we answer There is a double Pillar and a double ground one Principal the Scripture the other lesse principal and subordinate the Church now as this pillar and this ground is subordinate to the main pillar and ground we may rely and ground our selves but then the principal reliance and grounding must be upon that which is principal the Scripture For let me ask you likewise what is the Pillar and Ground of the Church Is it not the Scripture then the Church is but the pillar and ground by accident because that doth rely and is grounded upon the Scripture And therefore the Scripture is the more sure and infallible ground because what truth the Church hath it hath by participation and it is possible for it to hold forth and to have hung upon it somwehat which is false according to your own confession as I conceive you although not damnative And this doth well corroborate my inference from Saint Irenaeus words of the Scriptures being called the Pillar and Ground of Truth that therefore it is the Ground of Faith yes very rationally because it is the prime and supreme pillar and ground of Truth Yet you will raise a consequence upon mine for your cause thus If this consequence be strong which I deny not there is yet a stronger that the Truth is no where surer grounded then upon the pillar and foundation of Truth So you Sir What do you mean Do you make any difference betwixt the ground and foundation Do you mean that the Scripture is the ground of Faith but the Church is the Foundation This is your sense I suppose otherwise how a stronger Consequence For there is no comparative but where there is some difference And if this be what you would have then I think I may say I have what I would have and yet we are not agreed For then you confesse what I have hitherto held that the Scripture is the ground of Faith You said at first that the authority of the Church was the ground of Faith I said the Scripture was the ground of Faith and now you say as I say that the Scripture is the ground of Faith and so your contradiction is come into my affirmation But yet we are not agreed in that which you now superadd that the Church is the Foundation of Truth the Scripture is the Ground the Church the Foundation Is it so then have you changed the Question And why had we not the right state of it at first And was it not enough that the Church should be the ground of Scripture but must it be the Foundation in a more excellent sense I must not let this passe for your sake First what gives you occasion from the Text to assert the Church to be the Foundation signanter I do not see For the word in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie a Foundation but that which doth uphold
that the invisible Church shall not perish which is true although the visible Church be under a possibilitie to erre since every errour is not destructive of salvation In the 25. Number you tell me what you have said before but that you have given me some additional Testimonies in the supplement of the last which have their answer without repetition Onely you no where I think find that Saint Jerome did receive all those books which you receive for Canonical and for those Authours which held the Consubstantiality of the Son and those several properties of the Holy Trinity you will give me leave with judicious men to suspect Eusebius Beleeve your Cardinal herein Bellarmin in his De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis p. 94.5 6. where he brings the attestation of Saint Athanasius and Saint Jerome to the same purpose and Saint Jerome calls him not onely an Arrian but the Prince of the Arrians sometimes sometimes the Ensign-bearer Yea the 7. Synod he sayes and the Apostolical Legats rejected his authority as being an Arrian Heretique as he saies And as for Austins expression that the relying on the Church's authority is the most true and inviolable Rule of Faith you refer it to your 16. Number and there referre me to the 13. chapter of the first book Contra Cresconium which I cannot see there If it should be so disertly yet this must be understood respectively to those cases wherein the Scripture doth not clearly passe the Verdict in which the authority of the Church is the best rule we can then have as towards practice But this in his Opinion doth not absolutely leave us to follow Tradition of the Church in points of Faith unlesse he contradicts himself as you shall see at the end But you are afraid of want of Number to make noise because you say I said you had no other Testimony but Saint Austins I did not say that you had none but his absolutely but you had none but his that I could see of those you produced Neither him indeed if you please to tell us what you see Therefore we shall look over your reinforcing his and the main testimony for your cause in my answer whereunto I see yet no place for amendments or abatement I said if you consider the whole tenâ—â—r of the chapter you may be inclined to think that it came from him in some heat of dispute and methinks I may think so still Your men are wont to answer evidences of the Fathers which are against them when they please that such passages came from them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and surely we may have that liberty when there is such occasion given for us to interpret them as here if we consider how he was displeased with himself for a former respect to that Epistle and also if we take notice of his short returns of discourse in this Epistle and also if we mark his check and correcting and taking up himself towards the end of the chapter with an absit Sed absit ut ego Evangelio non credam And if this answer doth not weigh with you then I gave you another that this might be spoken of himself not in sensu composito as then but in sensu diviso as in order to that time when he was a Manichee himself To which purpose I told you it was familiar to him and other writers of that part of the world to expresse a tense more then past by the imperfect and the sense is that when he was a Manichee he would not have believed the Gospel but that the authority of the Church had moved him to it One place of this usage I found to be in a chapter you quoted in his De Predestinatione Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 1. s 14. Qui igitur opus est ut eorum ferutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haresis â—riretur non habuerunt necessitatem in hâc difficili ad solvendum quastione versari quod procul dubio facerem si respondere talibus cogerentur where you have the Imperfect Tense for the Tense more past facerent for fecissent and so the other So in his first Book of Retract cap. 51. Profecto non dixissem si jam â—uns essem literis Sucris ita eruditus ut recolerem where you have essem for fuissem and so the other And also by the way let me observe somewhat from those two places towards the main question besides the use of them in the way of Criticisme For by the former you have the reason why the Tradition of the Church in Doctrines received will not make an end of our differences since the questions were not then started and also by the second you may observe that we cannot swallow all that was said by Saint Austin without chewing since he sayes himself that had he been so well instructed he would not have said this and that And indeed his books of Retractations are books against you and do conclude wholly that we are not to take whatsoever the Fathers wrote to be as true as Gospel Yea some such books of Retractations all of them might have made as some think Origen did although they are perished as to us But the answers which I gave you to that passage of Saint Austin will not content you Therefore you endevour to shew at large that they will not serve You say unlesse he will stand to that ground he must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary What ground do you mean VVhat that he was moved by the Churches Infallible Authority as you would conclude at every turn No supposing him not to speak in aestu Sermonis yet what he said against his Adversary was reasonable without urging the Infallible authority For the consent of the Church might be considered by him as a condition towards the reception of any doctrine and yet not to be that which he built his Faith upon as upon an Infallible ground You may know the Causa sine qua non is not a cause although such a thing be not without it yet is not this the cause thereof And therefore make what you can of the place it will not afford you a firm foundation if his authority could do it You say that this is his first argument to shew that his Adversary by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle could prove nothing against those who as yet have not believed the Gospel So you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then Because the Adversary can prove nothing by Scripture to those that deny it therefore Saint Austin must infer that the authority of the Church is infallible and he must believe the Gospel upon no other ground VVhat consequence is this as if because Saint Austins adversary cared not for the judgement of the Church therefore we must be guilty of that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath so much wronged the Church as nothing more This
Catholick authority doth commend both which may be done without infallibility For the commendation doth not ingage the judgement in assent necessary but the authority may ingage the mind to have a good opinion thereof and so may move dispositively to Faith Fifthly Perpende it well that it is said by St. Austin that he was moved by the Catholick Church its authority and that the Catholick authority doth commend both not the Roman authority which now is included or to be included And therefore if you could prove that Saint Austin intended as much as you would have and also that his authority were sufficient to carry the cause for the Catholick Church Yet you can have from hence no more then your part comes to of a particular Catholick Church if indeed you were such And therefore have you upon your shoulders such a labour as all discerning Catholicks would detract or retract namely to make good that whatsoever is said of the Catholick Church in the respects of it should be singularly appropriated to the Roman But of this in your 27 number Whereas you seem to vaunt upon your paraphrase could he more clearly say that if once in one single lye he should find the Churches authority to be fallible he should then have left unto him no infallible ground at all upon which he were to beleeve Scripture So you First I deny your consequence this doth not follow from what you have urged that Saint Austin drives this discourse that if he should find them in a lye he could have no infallible ground to beleeve Scripture It follows well that he could not beleeve Scripture by their authority because they had led unto him But though they did not lie to him they might be fallible for they might purpose that which they thought to be true for errour and therefore for their not lying can we not infer their infallibility And for ought I see he doth not here any way give us to understand that he did think they could not lye to him and therefore he could not conceive them upon this impossibility to be infallible As for that which you think an Argument against me that he could not speak any thing in heat or by slip which he so much inculcates This is nothing effectual for how often do we with fervour endevor to maintain that which once hath by incogitance or passion gone from us Yea it may seem more likely because he doth so much inculcate it because we are so eager to cover our imperfections and especially when we are like to make good use of it against an adversary Secondly what doth he inculcate that which you would have But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they say this is under question and therefore his inculcation is nothing to you if he speak it assertively until you fortifie your supposition But one Marginal note of yours more at the sign of the crosse I find and that is this Had he said that he beleeved this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it by which he discovered it to be Canonical then the Manichaeans might as easily have said that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical So you This is no way moving much lesse cogent For first it proceeds from a Negative which in the kind of it unless from Scripture which is the adaequate rule is of no validity Because he did not say so therefore he did not hold so No connexion Secondly by the same reason I may say he did not hold the authority of the Church to be infallible for then he would have told them so plainly he would have made an end of the dispute without any need of using Scripture Thirdly they were not prepared for this Theological Argument because they did not own the Church And now all things being duely considered I think you have no cause to say that I have not sincerely and fully answered what you have had to say for your self out of that supreme Testimonie of Saint Austin And if you compare that chapter with the chapter you mention in the same Number below namely the fifth against the Epistle of the Manichee with the 14. De util Cred. against the Manichees too you will not or cannot heartily dislike my Answers and therefore need I not distinctly to answer this last since here also he doth not compare the authoritie of the Church with the authoritie of the Scripture which is our main question but he compares with the authoritie of those few those turbulent those new men as he speaks who were not like to bring forth any thing which any without doubt might not think not worthy of authoritie the authoritie of the Church as to the beleeving of Christ where also he said that he was moved by the authoritie of the Catholicks Quorum autoritate commotus Christum aliquid utile praecepisse jam credidi Whereby you shall if you will see the reasonablenesse of the former criticism because here he said jam credidi so that it must refer to to him as a Manichee And therefore can you not with Saint Austin beleeve the whole Scripture to be the Word of God from the beginning to the ending as upon infallible authority of the Church because if he did yet cannot you do it which is not to be done and if it be to be done because he did it then it is not to be done because he did it not And I hope those strange stories and those several points which you speak to be in Scripture may be more like to be beleeved upon the authority of the Scripture then upon the authority of the Church since the Church hath no authority but from Scripture not as a Church And therefore if you have no other infallible ground for prayers to Saints and prayer for the dead in your sense and other like points then you have proved he went upon as towards the believing of Scripture you have none Nay you have not so good authority for those and such like points as he had for the belief of the Scripture for besides the difference of the matter he had Catholick authority for his belief though the authority was not Infallible but you have not Catholick authority for your points though fallible But I observe your wisdome You would justifie your points here by Infallibility which you think may be more likely then to justifie your Infallibility by your points of difference Therefore your conditional postulate might have been spared untill the condition be proved If Saint Austin had done so as you suppose then you or your Church would have been more excused from singularity because you had followed him As for you you need not fear singularity You provide against that in your opinion or your Masters for you for you must follow the Church without examination of what they say Their word must be taken but yet your Church may be accused
of singularity because it doth not follow the Catholique If then you will do prudently as you speak go with Saint Austin no further then he would have you follow him namely in the way of Scripture which he understood well and at the latter time of his life but whether he understood it as much as any the Church had which you say may be yet under debate with all respect to Saint Austin since it appears not that he had any skill in Hebrew and if I remember well confesseth that he learned Greek but late So then if in some cases your own Men confesse that we must have recourse to the Original Languages how could he understand them so well And now come we to your grand assumption that what hath been said of the Catholick Church that it is by Christ appointed to be the Judge of all Controversies and that the definition of this Judge is Infallible and consequently a sufficient ground of Faith all the Doctrine must be applyed to the Roman Church and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church And now then you are pleased at the latter end to discover your selfe that you did intend at first the Roman Church but dealt more cunningly then the rest of the Pontificians who do include in the nature of the one and true Church subjection to the Bishop of Rome Methinks this plot of yours might be somewhat resembled by him who had that Phantasie that whatsoever Ship came to Port was his so now every Church must be yours or none as if the Roman Sea were the Ocean or you would have all the Honours that might be conferred by God upon that Church he would please to own signally and to make his conceiving that this Church can be none but your own And thus would you have led me on with some ingenuity to be liberal in my respects and devoirs to the Catholick Church that so you might without contradiction sweep all for the Roman Catholick But prove that those priviledges you speak of belong to the Roman Church and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church You prove it thus First This Protestant Church doth not so much as lay claim to those priviledges and so by her own Doctrine she cannot be Judge or Infallible nor any other Church but the Roman upon the same reason because they professe themselves by evident and Infallible Scriptures their own Fallibility as you prove the consequence to be to the end of your Page of the 27. Number and therefore the Roman Church is the true Church unlesse Christ hath no true Chrch nor hath had these many ages This is your argument which proceeds by way of a negative induction not the Protestant Church nor this other Church nor that nor any other Church doth claim the priviledge of being Infallible Judge onely the Roman therefore otherwise Christ hath had no true Church these many Ages Sir Which will you give us leave to do to smile or weep that men not to be contemned for their Learning and Reading should be abused and should endevour to abuse others by such ratiosinations which are made useful onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We and all other Churches do of their own accord yeild unto you that they are Fallible We save you the labour of the eviction True Churches they say they are and say they are not Infallible and they say also that you only do lay claim to this Infallibility but what then therefore you have Infallibility what because you only claim it Suppose that the Roman Church doth lay claim to Utopia or to the Terra incognita no other Church doth not the Protestant not any other therefore it is due to them Yes but where is this Utopia where is this Terra incognita what be the Priviledges and Dominions thereof they are yet to seek for them who lay claim to them First then make it out that there is such an Infallibility to be had before you challenge it and do not prove the beeing of it by your challenging it lest your Roman Eagle be said to catch at flies but prove solidly the beeing of it by the grounds thereof and then secondly prove a just claim for suppose that others did not lay claim to it what right can yet you have by a claim Is this also given primo occupanti If you have no other tenure for your Infallibility you have none and it doth bespeak fallibility to say the title is good If I might be so bold and surely I may in the cause of the truth of God it is more likely to fall out thus no Church but the Roman doth pretend to Infalliblity therefore is it highly presumptuous and is onely in this not an Usurper because there is no such thing as belonging to any Church We have no such tradition nor the Churches of God and yet also is it an insolent Usurpation of that Prerogative which belongs onely to God and Scripture This is enough to undo your argumentation and you but whereas you say that all other Churches of other Religions do say indeed that they themselves are the onely true Churches it is not true they doe not speak of themselves exclusively as you do Particular true Churches they may be under the truly Catholick Church and therefore they can contesserate one with another with respective acknowledgements but you are they who exclude all from the condition of being true Churches which will not reconcile themselves to you by absolute subjection And since you say that all other Churches but yours disclaim Infallibility you see that we alone do not stand aloof from obedience to your Roman Tyranny So you are not Catholicks in dominion neither Yet you would seem to have some reason for your discourse that one Church must be Infallible otherwise Christ hath not nor hath had any true Church these many ages This is inconsequential unlesse there be some Church Infallible Christ hath no true Church It is a false proposition as we have answered you from the first to the last that a true Church is Infallible and it is now all the question Though it be not true in every point yet may it be a true Church Every error doth not destroy the beeing of the Church and you have very great cause not to presse this lest it be retorted against your Church as it might be to be Even with you that Church which holds it selfe Infallible and yet hath erred is Fallible and therefore by your Doctrine no true Church the Church of Rome holdeth it self Infallible and yet hath erred then this is no true Church And might not the assumption here be proved by your own Doctrine for if the Tradition of the Church be the Rule of Faith then you have erred in rejecting the Millenary opinion which was a tradition of the Church So then your designe you speak of in the 28. Number of not expressing the Roman Church in your dispute you see is destroyed for what you say of
the not being a rule upon this account the traditions and the testimonies of the Fathers cannot be a rule because they have been abused Thirdly We do not intend the use of the judgement of discretion to rest in that upon an interpretation nor do we oppose it to the authoritie of the Church but we say this must be satisfied in Articles and matters of Faith notwithstanding the decisions of the Church by consonance thereof to Scripture otherwise it cannot give the assent of Divine Faith Every one must be perswaded in his own mind although he doth not make his own sense This private judgement should neither be blind nor heady it respects authoritie but joyneth only with appearance of the Word of God That which you say to the seventh answer was examined before That which you say to the eighth answer will not serve to save you from differing from your self which indeed if it were in way of retractation would not be reprehensible as Saint Austin speaks in the Preface of his Retractations Neque enim nisi imprudens c. for neither will any but an unwise man reprehend me because I reprehend my errours But if you have a mind to see the difference betwixt you and you you may thus Before you said that the ground of believing is the authoritie of the Church since you have said in your second paper that it is the authoritie of God revealing If there be no difference why do you not keep your terms as a Disputant should do But you say your reply is exceeding easie the ground of our faith is God revealing and God revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word So you Now then if you make the authoritie of God revealing to be the ground and cause of faith then it is not the authoritie of the Church because although God doth reveal by his Church yet is not the authoritie of the Church the ground of faith but Gods authoritie for the Church is but as a Messenger or Ambassadour which we do not believe for himself but for his Letters of Credence from his Master and so is it the authoritie of Gods revealing which is the ground of faith And this is made out by that you say to compound your variance You say the ground of our faith is God revealing and Gods revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word then the authoritie is his whereby we believe and not the authoritie of the Church which is but Miniâ—terial And by your own argument are you undone for if the Church be the ground of faith and not the Scripture because by the Church we believe such and such books to be Canonical as you have said before and also here below in this Reply to my eight Answer then also the Authoritie of the Church is not the ground of faith because we must first believe Gods authoritie revealing it to his Church before we believe the Church But also to take notice of that Argument of yours here it is false For we must first believe the authoritie of Scripture before we can believe any authoritie of the Church For the Church as such hath all from Scripture as I have shewed And therefore by your own argument are you undone again for if that be the ground of faith which is first then the Scripture not the Church and therefore the Church may be disputed not the Scripture which we do understand by way of Intelligence through a supernatural light and cannot demonstrate as we may the Church by principles of Scripture Again you seem to differ from your self because now you hold that the Church is the ground of our faith in all particulars causally because by it we believe the Scripture but before the faith of a Catholick which you mean generally must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it so your first paper in terminis terminantibus But now when we believe the Scripture by the Church we may believe that which is plain in it by it self because it saith it not because the Church saith it Do not you now somewhat yield not to me but to truth Truth will be too hard for any one that hath not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost and yet also will it be too hard for him though he denies it Consider then what you have said and what you think and judge how the Masters of your Church will answer it at Gods Tribunal for that everlasting cheating of simple souls with the mysterie of implicite faith And that also which you so much repeat that we must receive Canonical books by the Infallible authoritie of the Church is not yet grown beyond the height of a postulate It hath been often denied you upon necessitie and it did not obtain it seems universally in the practice of the Church or else some of your Apocriphal books were not accounted Canonical for Cyrill of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechese where he speaks in part of the Scriptures he accounts not in the number the Maccabees you spoke of nor some others Yea for the reception of books Canonical Saint Jerome gives another reason of embracing but four Gospels in his Preface upon the Comment upon Saint Matthew not because the Church owned no more as you would have Saint Austin to be understood but he doth prove that there are but four by compare of that of Ezekiel with that of the Apocalypse about the foure beasts which doe represent as he interprets their meaning the four Evangelists You go on and say God revealing is alwayes the formall Object of faith Before every thing was to be believed as proposed by the Church because she proposeth it so that the formal Object of things to be believed was as proposed by the Church under that consideration But sometimes God revealeth his mind by Scripture sometimes by the Church as he did two thousand years and more before the Scriptures were written So you Well then now he reveales himself by Scripture contradistinctly to the Church as well as by the Church contradistinctly to Scripture which you put in one behalf of your unwritten word So then we may believe him immediately by Scripture but whether we can believe him immediately by tradition without Scripture wants conviction Neither doe you exhibit a reason of this Opinion by that which follows that for two thousand years and upwards before the Scriptures were written he revealed himself by the Church This as before is not enough to sustain traditional Doctrine because the Scripture in the substance of it was before it was written but you cannot evince that the word not written is as certain to us as the word before it was written was unto them And the Reason may be taken from
Crimen falsi for I do not see upon the place any half Syllables out of which you may draw any such interpretative Confession I have often upon your occasion said the contrary that the authority of the Church cannot be the cause of faith And therefore whether you have any faith of the Articles of Religion or of Scripture in all your Church is more easie to be found then said And assuredly though we talk of faith in the world the greatest part of it is but opinion which takes religion upon the credit of man and not of Scripture And as for us we have also the authority of the Church Catholick to move our judgement and Scripture to settle our faith And we are more related to the foure General Councils in consanguinitie of Doctrine as he said then your Church now And now at the end of all you doe fairly rebate the edge of your censure of my Expression namely Excesse of Faith But you say my distinction doth no way salve the improprietie of my Speech For there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects But granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that sense it is not truely said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing that which God hath said So then by my Distinctions which is your School of Fides Subjectiva fides Objectiva fides Qua fides Quae there may be an Excesse of Faith in the Object if we beleive more then God hath said supposing we can believe what God hath not said although there be not an excess of faith in the Subject for we cannot have too much faith in that which is to be believed But the quarrel against the speech was not becacause it was not proper enough and congruous in this Discourse but because of the Application of it to you as it now appears and therefore here would you vindicate the Church in this upon the same ground of infallibilitie and therefore for your Faith in whatsoever you believe you have this Warrant Thus saith the Lord. But since this infallibilitie of yours you cannot have without begging of the question even to the last nor shall have it surely by begging you are yet to finde out some Expedience of Means or Arguments how to preserve your selves from that just charge of Excesse of Faith and the chief of that kind is that you speak of your infallibilitie for which you have not Thus saith the Lord. How then do you prove it by Tradition And how do you prove Tradition by the infallibility of the Church Therefore go not to Faith about by a circumference If you have a desire to rest your judgement and your soul in certain infallibilitie by your own word then center in Scripture from which all Lines of Truth are drawn and dismisse Tradition as your men state it for which this infallibilitie was devised and yet cannot be maintained for it cannot maintain it self You close with a passage of Saint Austin If so the words you intend it to set out your Charity to the Church of Christ not to perswade my Faith in its infallibilitie I may love the Church without infallibility because though I doe not love Errour yet must I love the Church when it is in Errour And this gives you occasion to think well of this respective and full answer to your last Paper Excuse me that it was so long ere it came and yet not much above the space of yours and also so long now it is come Onely let me leave you with a Father or two in whose company you are delighted Tertullian in his Prescript cap. 8. We have no need of Curiositie after Christ nor further Inquisition after the Gospell When we believe we desire to believe nothing beyond For this we first believe that there is not any thing beyond which we ought to believe Again against Hermog cap. 22. I adore the plenitude of Scripture And a little after Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina If it be not written let him fear that woe appointed for those who adde or take away And Saint Austin in his 2. book De Doc. Christiana cap. 9. In iis enim quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt Amongst those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture are found all those things which contain Faith and Manners of Living to wit Hope and Charitie For the excellent modification of Scripture in the 6. chapter Magnifice igitur salubriter Sp. Sanctus ita Scripturas Sanitas modificavit ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur And the same in the 7. chapter for the second Degree or step to Wisedome He saith Deinde opus est mitescere Pietate neque Contradicere Divinae Scripturae sive intellectae si aliqua vitia nostra percutit sive non intellectae quasi nos melius sapere meliusque percipere possimus sed cogitare potius credere id esse melius verius quod ibi scriptum est etiamsi lateat quam id quod nos per nos met-ipsos sapere possumus And again Saint Austin contra Literas Petit. Lib. 3. cap. 6. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit Si Angelus de Coelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis Anathema sit Consider what is said and the Lord give you understanding in all things To the Reader How in these times in which there be so many Religions the true Religion may certainly be found out 1. A Satisfactory Answer to this Title will alone put an end to the endless controversies of these dayes This made me think my labour well bestowed in treating this point somewhat largely And because that Treatise hath received a very large answer the examining of this answer will make the Truth yet more apparent That this may be done more clearly I will briefly tell you the Order I intend to observe in the examination of the said answer And because this answer directly followeth the same Order which I observed in treating the question prefixed in my Title Therefore when I have shewed you the Order of that Treatise you will clearly see that I shall most orderly answer the Reply against it 2. That Treatise had a short Preface to tell the intent of it My first Chapter must then be the Examination of what is said against this Preface Again that Treatise did shew five things First it did shew the necessity of a Judge to whom all are bound to submit Secondly That Scripture alone did not suffice to decide all necessary Controversies without a living Judge to
by those places of Scripture which places as they could not before the meeting of the Councils so they cannot after the meeting of the Council fully define determine and decide these controversies Now surely it is clear by these Acts of the first four Councils which Councils your English Church holds for lawful that the Fathers of these Councils never so much as doubted but that they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define and finally to determine those controversies still arising And they had grievously wronged the world by Excommunicating all such as should gain-say what they had defined and determined if Errour and Falsity and Contradiction to Scripture could have been found in their Definitions and Determinations What you touch concerning the Bereans I answer fully chap. 3. Numb 14. 6. Whereas you adde fourthly That the decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto peace though their judgement cannot claim an undisputed assent yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference you teach by words what the deeds of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid Secondly seeing that a general Council as you in your first paper confess is the highest Court on Earth to hear and determine Controversies if her determinations may be erronious and these erronious determinations be to be accepted peaceably reverently and without disturbance in what a pittiful case should Gods whole Church be which having no higher Court from which relief might be hoped is bound to conform and subscribe to erroneous definitions and all preachers are silenced and obliged not to open their mouth against these errours Did it beseem the wisedome of Christ to appoint such a Government in his Church which should leave open so wide a gap to errors which being by command from the highest authoritie on earth preached by so many and not so much as contradicted by one must needs increase to a wonderful height Would any wise Law-makers proceed thus if they could help it as well as Christ could by continuing in his Church that infallibility which you will confesse it had those two thousand years before Scripture was written and which this Church of Christ had before all the whole Canon of the New Testament was finished which was for the first fourty years of the Church 7. Vain is your fear that we should become Hypocrites in differing by one outward Act from our inward act of belief for any wise man may inwardly perswade himself although I by my force of wit cannot see how such a point defined by a whole general Council should be true yet if I have wit I cannot but perswade my self even according to humane wisedome that so grave a judgement of a whole Council is far more likely to see the truth then my private judgement and therefore rather to be interiorly imbraced Again I may discourse thus All the places alleadgeable against the Definitions of Councils or of Scriptures be places clear or not clear if not clear then clearly I am imprudent and impudent to oppose in a point not clear my private judgement of discretion against the publick judgement of all Christendome far more likely in a point not clear to hit upon the truth then I am Now if these places alledgable against the Definitions of Councils be clear and evident it is an evident and clear folly in me to think that so wise an Assembly should have so universal a blindnesse as that none of them should be able to discover that which is clear and evident even in my short sight See chap. 4. Numb 51. Again I may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error as I shall shew chapter 4 Numb 28.29 30 31 32 33 34 35. And this Principle will beat down to the ground all Opposition which an humble soul can make who will captivate her understanding in this case unto the obedience of faith as the Apostle speaketh 8. And when you ask me wherein you oppose general Councils I answer First that you oppose them even in that most fundamental ground upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to set as Judges with full Commission to determine securely all controversies obliging all Christians to conform to their Definitions by such Censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven Others will tell you divers other Oppositions you have with Councils and even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils when you charge them with speaking contradictions But when you come to speak your mind more largely you do your uttermost endeavours to make the world think that they have not sufficient assurance that any Council was as yet a Lawful General Council I need no further proof of these your endeavours then all those manifold Objections which you put and I answer in my 4. chapter Numb 20.21 9. And when you ask again why you are charged as if you were opposite to the true Catholike Church I answer Christ had in all ages since his time a true Catholik Church and consequently he had such a Church upon earth when your Reformation as you call it began But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many and very important points of doctrine not onely the Roman but all other Churches upon earth Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholike Church in many and very important points And in plain English I tell you this argument which is in lawful form is unanswerable And when you say that when you differ without opposition you keep the peace of the Church without question I answer That your Reformers did apparently in many and most important points differ from all Churches Christ had then upon the Earth in opinion of publick Doctrine censuring such and such Points as they all held to be Erronious Superstitious opposite to the Word of God and in this opposition you continue still though in this whole age you have not been able to name one age in this last thousand years in which Christ had a truly Catholike Church upon Earth agreeing with you in those many and most important points in which your Reformers taxed us to have opposed the Scriptures And as for exterior division you cannot name the Church upon earth from which you did not divide your selves at your Reformation And I challenge you to tell me if you can to what Church on Earth then visible you did joyn your selves or who acknowledged you to be of their communion 10. To prove yet further that we are not bound to submit our judgements to the Church you use as you say my own argument That we are bound to submit our judgement onely to those who can judge of the inward act But Sir I never said any such thing for how know we whether the Scripture Writers or the Apostles themselves did know without
proof from the last Text but one for just as that Text so also this saith that that one point of Jesus his being the true Son of God and the Messias might clearly be found in the Scripture How will you inferre Ergo All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture because one thing is plainly set down Every Veritie set down in Scripture is a most sure infallible Veritie But whence have you that every Verity necessary to salvation is set down in the Scripture And yet again where have you that all things necessary to Salvation were then set down plainly in Scripture when Saint Peter spoke these words which he spoke many years before the whole Canon of Scripture was finished But before the whole Canon was finished it was false to say All things necessary to salvation were clearly set down in Scripture Therefore if Saint Peter had said this in this Text he had said that which was false Therefore It is false that Saint Peter said in this Text that all things necessary to salvation were plainly set down in Scripture 14. Your next and last Text is Act. 17. where it is said of the Bereâ—â—s They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures dayly whether those things were so Good Sir whilest this text is now fresh in our minds shew me here any one evident clear syllable which saith the Bereans did search the Scriptures before they believed Saint Paul Nay is it not first said They received the Word with all readinesse of mind to wit they received the Word as many other thousands did whose proceedings you can never prove less laudable then the Bereans upon those Motives which Saint Paul proposed unto them before they searched the Scriptures and being by these motives and instructions well illightned to understand the Scriptures they for their further comfort and confirmation searched the Scriptures dayly to see whether they testified the same point and this one point of our Saviours coming being clearly in Scripture perhaps Saint Paul might bid them search in such and such texts for it Neither hence is it made evident that the Old Testament was thrust into every mans hand of the Bereans but that they deputed their chief Doctours to make this search and that for this one point onely Whence as I said before your consequence from hence is very weak That all points necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture because this one point was so Yea when the Bereans did search the Scriptures no part of the New Testament was written how strangely then do you prove from their search of the Old Scripture to find one point set down clearly that all points necessary to be found are set down plainly now the new Scripture is written 15. Having now examined all the Texts upon which you did ground that main point that all things necessary to decide all controversies are plainly set down in Scripture and having found this point no where plainly set down I from hence plainly conclude that the belief of this point is not plainly necessary And I conclude this by your own words That what is not plainly set down in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary We are not therefore obliged to take the Scripture for our only Judge of controversies for where is this Obligation plainly set down in Scripture And for ought we can yet see there may be many prime controversies no where plainly decided yea or so much as lightly insinuated in Scripture And yet the Scripture wanteth not that glory of being sufficient to decide all imaginable controversies because she teacheth us that Christ hath erected a Church built upon a Rock the pillar and ground of truth having the Spirit of truth abiding with her to teach her all truths Frivolous is that Objection which saith If it be a point necessary to salvation to believe that the Church is to decide with infallible authority all our controversies we should find this plainly set down in Scripture Because as we have proved all this while all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down in Scripture even such points as might import the ending of all controversies to wit this your grand point All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Yea the Texts which I bring chap. 4. are a hundred times more clear to prove that the Church is to decide all our controversies then that the Scripture by it self alone is to decide them as any man may see by the attentive reading of these my Texts there and your Texts here See there Numb 58. 59 60 61 62 63 64 65. 16. Though it might evidently serve to prove against you That all things necessary to Salvation be not plainly set down in Scripture that this very prime point is not plainly set down in Scripture yet I have already in the beginning of this Chapter brought many other strong proofs to which according to good order I should here add those many more which I am yet to bring But you interpose so many things by the way that I am forced to defer those other arguments Yet that my Reader may know briefly what they are and how many and so read them here if he please I thought good to tell him that I prove yet further many necessary points to Salvation not to be plainly set down in Scripture For we find not there set down evidently First Whether it be damnable to work upon the Sunday see Numb 39. Secondly Whether the King be the head of the Church see Num. 41. Thirdly Which books be the undoubted true Canonical Scriptures see Numb 42. And particularly Whether St. Matthews Gospel be the undoubted word of God Numb 42.46 Fourthly Whether it be clear in your opinion that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Extreme unction see Numb 58. Fiftly Whether also it be clear that Christ doth not give us his true body in the Sacrament Numb 59. Sixthly I shew divers points necessary to Salvation for which you cannot shew evident Scripture As That God the Father is not begotten God the Sonne is begotten and not made And that he is Consubstantial to his Father That God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but doth proceed and that both from the Father and from the Son see Numb 60. Seventhly I presse for an evident Text for Baptizing Infants or bringing them to be baptized when Parents can which you hold necessary for all Parents Numb 61. I might have added that great Question Whether it be necessarie to rebaptize those who be baptized by Hereticks For as Saint Austin saith De Unitate Eccle. c. 22. This is neither openly nor evidently read in Scripture Neither by you nor by me Yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this Question we should make no doubt Mark this thou impugner of the infallibilitie of
that no small glimpse of this light should be observable in the writings of all Antiquitie In which the most observing eyes cannot espy the least glimpse of it Reply I think if the Doctours of the Primitive Church had told the Heathens that they had no better assurance for all the points of their then new faith then the Word of God written and no greater assurance that such and such writings were his undoubted Word then the very reading of those books did give them by a light as evident as the Sun the Heathens would have scoffed at them for saying that which they protested to be so visible and yet none could see it but those who first believe it upon this evidence to them wholly invisible 25. Fifthly I argue thus Take a book which you hold not to be Gods undoubted word The book of Toby for example or Judith and read these books over And then take another book which you hold to be Gods undoubted Word for example the book of Numbers and read that over or rather to end the sooner read over only as many Chapters as be in the book of Toby that is 16. and then I challenge you to tell me if you can as surely you can if it be as cleare as Sun shine in what Chapter Verse or Word any divine rayes and such rayes as are sufficiently observable to produce an infallible assent that such a book is Gods undoubted word which rayes be not to the very full as observable in the same chapter and verse or equivolent word of the book of Toby What would you have us doe with our eyes to keep us from seing how clearly this is impossible for you to doe which notwithstanding should be most easie if your opinion were true or the truth 26. Sixthly if any one verse yea or any one small word especially this litle word Not be left out in any Chapter either through ignorance malice or carelesnes of those writers whose Copies our printed books have followed whom will you be able to make believe that you are so sharp-sighted as to see this omssion by a light sufficient for an infallible beliefe of it onely by the reading these Scriptures 27. Seventhly To prove that true general Councels be fallible you use often to alledge this argument that one true generall Councell directly gainsaith another which if you could prove you should indeed prove that the Councils are fallible But I can prove unto you that one who readeth the same book as well as you and hath the true Spirit of God as well as you if not in a larger measure shall flatly say that Book not to be Gods Word which you without all doubt affirm to be Gods infallible Word This ground then of knowing which is which is not Gods Word grounding contradictory opinions must needs be false as I prove thus Luther a â—an acknowledged by your common consent to have had Gods Spirit did read over the Epistle of Saint James and held it to be an Epistle of straw He did read over the Book of the Apocalips or Revelations and held it not to have been written by an Apostolical Spirit You read over these books and protest so seriously that by the light of them you infalliblely know them to be Gods true Word Your two opinions are flat contradictory and yet they are both grounded upon this ground of reading these books with the Spirit of God Therefore this ground is fallible and consequently cannot ground an infallible faith of this point But you have no other infallible faith of this point but what is grounded on this fallible ground Ergo the faith you have of this point is not an infallible and divine faith but a meer humane perswasion such as we have to believe the works Virgils to have been written by Virgil. But if any desire to have this case put in two Men whom most of the world will more assuredly believe to have had the true Spirit of God and to have had also as cleere-sighted eyes as most men we know in all mankind I will put the case in the two prime Doctours of the Latine Church Saint Hierome and Saint Austin Saint Hierome read over the bookes of the Machabees and could not by the reading of them see them infallibly to be Gods Word St. Austin read these books and held them infallibly to be Gods Word How came these two most sharp-sighted men to see quite contrary to one another by the self same most clear Light as you must say But we deny that either of them did see this Light and that by it onely they did see which were true which false Scriptures But we say they both followed in this point the proposition of the Church which Church in Saint Hieromes time had not clearly proposed the book of Machabees to be Gods word But the third Council of Garthage at which Austin was present declared these Books to be Gods Word and so Saint Austin held thâ—â— Books infallibly to be Gods Word grounding this his belief upon the Declaration of the Council at Carthage which Council saith Canon 47. that it did set down these books for Scripture because we have received from our Fathers that those are to be read in the Church Saint Hierome had not seen this Council of Carthage and because he was used to ground his faith by which he believed such books to be or not be Gods Word upon the Declaration of the Church therefore until he did see that Declaration he could not hold this as infallible which Saint Austin afterwards held infallible because he had seen afterwards that Declaration of the Church This is an excellent proof of our Opinions and disproof of yours which cannot give any kind of reason for their disagreeing in a thing so clear as you say this point is 28. Hence you will see that this Evidence upon which you ground your infallible assent to believe Scripture to be Gods Word and then all the rest for Gods Word believed so ungroundedly is not improperly by you compared to that Evidence by which the first Principles shew themselves to be evidently true as this Principle doth It is impossible that any thing should be so and yet not be so in all the selfsame circumstances For who ever did differ about such a Principle as this is All men see the Evidence of these Principles But none but a few of your sect see the Evidence of what you say Yea they evidently see there is no such evidence to be seen And if you say that we must have a special spirit that is new eyes to see it Then you who have this spirit are all Prophets discovering by private Revelations made to your selves that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover But now when I see all and every one of your belief laying claime to the Sprit assisting them even as farre as infallibility to the hardest of all points I hope no prudent man will thinke
from erring damnable by it Now by what Logick do you inferre that because the Church is secured from all damnable errour therefore according to my doctrine shee is not secured from other errours All you build upon this consequence falls to the ground Going on I find you by the way quarelling with one of the Cardinall vertues even Prudence her self which you intimate then only to have place when Religion is chosen by interest I pray do you thinke in earnest that men cannot proceed prudently in the choise of their Religion Then you conclude that all the force my former argument hath it hath from Scripture Is not my argument the better for this against you who professe to believe Scripture to be Gods undoubted word independently of the authority of the Church because it is clearly manifested to you to be so by its light as the Sun by his light Is it not a convincing argument which is strengthened with an authoritie acknowledged so firme Against a Heathen untill I had proved Scripture to him I would not use this argument 4. Presently I find you again stumbling at the sense in which I took the word damnable as if I should allow the following of the Church in other errours No Sir you cannot follow her in other errors because she cannot go before you in any errour not in any damnable errour as your own selves teach no nor in any other errour as in this very next argument is proved if you mark the force of it 5. The force then of my next Argument is this God commandeth us to obey the Church and hear her in obeying her and hearing her we follow Gods Command But no kind of errour little or great can be incurred by following Gods Command therefore we can be lead into no kind of errour by following the Church Again you your selves say it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour though it be not a damnable errour Wherefore if I can prove that we are obliged to follow the Church I shall prove also that shee cannot guide us into any kind of errour This I prove by that text Matthew 18. verse 18. If he will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a publican or a Heathen Therefore meerly and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held and truely according to Gods judgment deserving to be held a publican or Heathen but all we are obliged not to deserve to be held by Gods judgement Publicans or heathens Therefore all are obliged to hear the Church being that meerly and purely for not hearing her they are to be held and deservingly held according to Gods judgment Publicans and Heathens as is also further insinuated in the next verse where it is said this sentence shall be ratified in Heaven Now if any man reply that we are to heare the Church so long as she swerveth not from Gods word my answer is that to swerve from Gods word is to erre but this text proveth she cannot erre Ergo it proveth that she cannot swerve from Gods word and indeed if she could the meerly not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to Gods judgement a Publican or Heathen But you tell me this text is to be understood not of matters of faith or unbelief but of matters of trespasse between brother and brother and refractoriness in the person And that it respects excommunication by censure in which also it may erre Neither is a man bound to believe the censure is just unless it appears to be so This last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine for the unanimous opinion of learned men is That a man is bound to hold his superiours censure or command to be just unless the contrary appears evident See your own Doctors Chillingworth P. 308 N. 108. Hooker P. 310 311. N. 110. Laud P. 226. And indeed you bring all to this that when all comes to all you are the last judge to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred and not to the sentence of the Church for you reserve to your selfe the last judgement of her sentence to see whether it be just or no in your own private opinion Sir if the contrary be not evident the Church who is Superior is to be followed and obeyed If the contrary be evident it is impossible such a superior as the Church is assembled in a general Council should not mark that evidence without we will call that evident or not evident which is for our present turn to call evident or not evident That which is truly evident will of it selfe appear to be so at least to the most judicious upright and best instructed Prelates of the Church And this is to be said according to human Reason although they had no infallible promise of a more then humane assistance from the Holy Ghost Moreover Sir let us if you please not passe so farre as the Censure but let us make a stay in the mere consideration only of the cause for which the censure is given that the cause is not hearing the Church for this and meerly for this only cause according to the text this man is according to Gods judgement deservedly to be held as a Publican or Heathen and therefore if for this act of not hearing the Church the censure cometh to be after wards pronounced against him that censure will be made good in Heaven as the next verse clearly saith Wherefore it is impossible that this Censure should be unjust if he truly be guilty of not hearing the Church It is true that a man may by false information or some such way be judged to be guilty of not hearing the Church when really he is not guilty and so there may be an errour in the mistake of the fact and thus Clave errante in mater of fact the sentence will not be ratified in Heaven But this is nothing to the purpose for still he who is truly guilty of not hearing the Church is for that only fact and meerly for that cause to be held deservedly according to Gods judgment as a publican or Heathen And so the Church cannot errour in denouncing Excommunication against such a person And hence you see how truely miserable such a person is and how it must needs be damnable unto him not to heare the Church which not to hear maketh a man to be held as a Publican or Heathen most deservedly and according to Gods owne judgement To hold himself not to deserve this punishment is to hold against Scripture You highly wrong Saint Athanasius to say he heard not the Church See my 9. Number These my Premisses being made good it followeth clearly that no man is secure in conscience who will not obey the Church And hence again it followeth that this Church cannot erre at least damnably for else a Man might in Conscience be bound to follow a damnable errour No she cannot erre in an
errour not damnable because also it very true which you lately said that so men should be bound to assent unto an errour which is impossible Hence that common doctrine of Antiquity That it is not possible to have a just cause to separate from the Church And it cannot be said that any man separates himselfe not from the Church but her errours being she is secured from all errour as appeareth manifestly by our obligation to hear her you tell me that this text obliging to hear the Church is meant onely of trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother which trespasses are also to be told to every particular Church and to Severall Prelates and therefore this place say you maketh nothing for the authoritty of the Vniversall Church Sir I grant particular trespasses are to be referr'd ro particular Prelats and that the Church is not to be called to a general Counsel for every private mans trespasses singular private men are to be condemned by the particular Prelates of their particular Churches proceeding according to the known Decrees and Orders of the Universal Church If he clearly disobeyeth them thus proceeding he disobeyeth the Universall Church And for this act merely deserveth according to Gods own judgement to be accounted as a Publican and Heathen So he who disobeyeth the particular Judge judging according to the known Lawes of the Common-wealth disobeyes the Common-wealth And it is this not obeying the Church and the not hearing her which exaggerates the crime whence you see the not hearing the particular Prelates in so well ordered a Communitie as the Church is may come to be commonly the self same crime with the not hearing of the Church And because all such Prelates when the contrary is not apparently manifest are supposed to do their duty in giving sentence according to the known Decrees Orders and Canons of the Universal Church as we usually say those who disobey the Judges disobey the Commonwealth so generally speaking those who disobey the Prelates of the particular Church disobey the Universal Church commanding them to proceed according to her Decrees Definitions and Canons So that at last this disobedience is against Christ and God himself according to that which God said to Samuel Lib. 1. Cap. 8. They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me And Christ to his Disciples the first Prelates of the Church He that despiseth you despiseth â—â— And therefore Christ commanded the lawful Successours of Moses to be followed in what they delivered by publick authority although they were wicked in their private lives and many of them publickly did teach Errours though not by publick authoritie or authorized by any Definition of that Seat which private Errours Christ called the Leaven of the Pharisees bidding his Apostles take heed of it But concerning what that Seat did by publick Definition Christ was so far from bidding people to take heed of it that he in as general terms as men speak when they would speak without any exception Said to the whole promiscuous multitude and also to his disciples upon the Chair of Moses have setten the Scribes Pharieses All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and doe Mark these most ample words All therefore whatsoever O! will you say what if they bid us do against the Scriptures Why this very saying of Christ sheweth they were secured from ever doing against the Scripture when they proceeded by way of defining with Publick authority If you object that they condemned our Saviour by publike authority you have your Answer Number 9. Say I we must hear the Church and because we must Universally hear her for she doubtless hath to the full as much reason to be heard as the old Iewish Church then had she must be confessed to have full assurance never to gainsay the Scripture And as the Synagogues Authortity was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard onely in point of trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother but was to be extended to All whatsoever they should order So you can not with out depressing the Authority of Christs Church who had a better Covenant established upon better promises Hebrews 8.6 hinder her power from being extended to All whatsoever she shall Order It must not therefore be confined only to trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother But we must of necessity for the reason now expressed argue thus That being she is to be heard even in Controversies concerning trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother much more is she to be heard in such trespasses as are committed by one Brother against all his Brothers and their dearest Mother the Church Then or never he is to be complained of And if this obstinacy in persevering in trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother deserveth that a Man should be held as a Publican and a Heathen he incomparably more deserveth to be held so who being commanded by the Church to desist from such pernicious opinions as ruine the Soules of his Brothers and tear asunder the bowells of his Mother still persists in his impious doctrine and in that most infectious and Soulmurthring crime of heresie the most heinous trespass against all our Brothers Either such a crime or no crime is to be told the Church Yea Saint Thomas calleth Schisme of which Heresie is alwaies guilty the highest sin against the whole Comunity of our brother hood Now this crime is to be told first to the particular Prelats as soon as it is perceivd to be begining to creep like a canker as the Scripture saith Heresie doth If by this judgement of particular Prelats this crime be clearely found to be indeed Heresie or a doctrine opposit to the known former definitions of the Church Universall they are to excommunicate him who is pertinacious in this soul-murthering Crime and this sentence is sure to be ratified in Heaven because he who hath opposed in Doctrine the known Definitions of the Church hath not heard nor obeyed her for which onely fact according to the clear sentence of Scripture he deservedly is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen Now if the Crime be not clearly against the known doctrine of the Universal Church or not so evident against it but many hold the contrary the particular Prelates are bound to acquaint the head of the Church therewith This supreme Prelate of the Church is bound to use the fulness of his authoritie to supresse the arising Heresie He may forbid if he feareth danger in the doctrine that no such doctrine be published untill the Church shall think it fit And then all must doe as Saint Paul saith Hebr. 13. v. 27. Obey their Prelates Thus far the power of the supreme Prelates is extended by the consent of the whole Church He therefore that in this case obeyeth not is guilty of not bearing the Church which single crime maketh a man deservedly accounted as a Publican or Heathen Now though the Supreme head of the Church be as infallible as Saint Peter was yet if
Christian or any word of the new Scripture was writen The meaning of St. Paul is that an Heretick might if he would clearly see his private doctrine to be opposite to the known publick Doctrine of the Church which Church then shined with the glory of infinite Miracles stupendious conversions and most eminent Sanctity and was then formed most completely with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith Yea you will say she was then more completely furnished to that end then ever she was since that time 49. Now because your cheif exception against the Churches being our judge is that you hold her not infallible besides all the proofs I have already brought of her infallibility I shall now add divers more But in the first place I must a little more fully tell you what we understand by the name of the Church He who is a seeker of his Religion must first believe the Universal Church diffused to be furnished by God with true infallible meanes to direct us securely in all doubts of faith wherefore he most prudently judgeth himselfe bound to joyne himselfe to her in faith being convinced that she directed most securely in faith Being thus also a seeker resolved to ioyne to these true believers When he proceedeth further to take a particular account in whom this infallible meanes given to the Church Universal of directing all securely in matters of faith doth consist he will readily find that it doth not consist in all the members of the Universal Church for Children and women be of the Church and yet their Vote in no mans opinion is required to the deciding any controversie in faith the Laiety also hath no decisive Voice in those points nor every inferiour Clergy man but only such as are Prelates Overseers and Governors over the rest So that in fine this infallible direction is Unanimously affirmed by us all to be undoubtedly settled upon the authority of the prime Pastors Prelats of the Church assembled together in a lawfull generall Councell with their cheife Pastor and Head the Bishop of Rome Against a thing so easily to be understood you cry out aloud of strange intricatenesse and inextricable proceedings And yet I think most clowns of this Land did easily understand what was meant by a decree of the Kingdome to the which the consent of King and Kingdome assembled in Parliament as the custome was for many years together was required Now what more difficulty is there to know what we meane by a decree or Definition of the Church The kingdome representative was the king and the Parliament The Church representative is the cheife Bishop with the full Assembly of the other Bishops in a lawful Council the Decrees and definitions of which assembly be the decrees and definition of the Church In a thing so cleare you labour your uttermost to raise a thick mist 50. First you obiect who can be certain by a divine faith of the lawfulnes and Regularity of a Pope in his first creation I answer that when I speake of a Pope defining in a lawfull Councel as I do now speak I speak of such a Pope to whom the Church submitted in calling the Councel and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful head to preside in the Councel These very acts supply all defects in his election and do make it evidently credible that he is the true head who thus admitted defined with the Councel as their acknowledged head Secondly you ask when there was Pope against Pope who of the people could distinguish the right Pope I answer that he shall ever be esteemed the right Pope to whom the Prelates of the Church shall unanimously obey when he calleth them to meet in a general Councel and in this Councel to preside over them To to have two such Popes as these are at one time is impossible And this is the only time in which a Pope defineth with a lawful Councel What you say of Popes not defining in such a Councel is not our Case put me a Pope defining with a lawful Councel and then prove him fallible if you can Whether the Popes definitions out of a Councel be fallible or infallible maketh nothing to this purpose Only this is evident if they be infallible out of a Councel they be infallible in a Councel Thirdly you think that no Controversies can in our opinion be decided when there is a doubt who is true Pope And you ask who is then to call a Councel And when the Councel is called you think us to think that this Councel can define nothing without a Pope I doubt not Sir but you have found a clear answer to all this in Bellarm lib. 2. de Concilis Chap. 19. that although a Councel without a Pope cannot define any article of faith yet in time of schisme it can judge which is true Pope and provide the Church of a true Pastor if she had none who thus provided by the Councels authority may dissolve the Councel if he pleaseth or if he please to have them remaine assembled they remaine so now by his authority and can define as well as other Councels called by the Pope In that meeting in which the Pope was to be chosen or declared the undoubted Pope the Prelats of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves Fourthly you ask how we can by divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulnes and generality of Councels for Councels have been called by Emperours not by Popes Sir your Church which never had nor shall have generall Councel is to seeke in all things belonging to them Our Church almost in every age since Constantine hath been visibly assembled in general Councels and by perpetual practice hath been sufficiently informed to deliver by the assistance of the Holy Ghost all that she hath received from her ancestors to be essential to a true Councel and to deliver this point infallibly To your obiection in order I answer first That it is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institution by which either Emperours be assured to be still found in the world or that when they have that dignity they be by divine institution invested with a power to call Councels We seek for this divine Institution This we will not admit until it can be shewed in Scripture or Tradition the fact of calling sheweth not divine Institution Secondly as for the Prelates of the Church we can shew divine Institution Act. 20.28 Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock to feed or govern the Church of God And 4. Epho Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ that henceforth we may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine c. Thirdly The Emperour is not by divine Institution Lord of the Christian world No nor of any considerable part
to their successours the visible Teachers and Guides of the Church which were to guide people into all Truth for ever must needs have been verified all this last thousand years before your Reformation All this time all the visible Guides or Prelates of the Church were led and did lead into opinions contrary to the Tenets of your Church But all this time the spirit of Truth did abide with them guiding them into all Truth Therefore the opinions contrary to your Tenets were true and not errors If he should be with your Prelats beginning this last age to hold contrary to the Prelats of the last thousand years he should be with those who teach contradictions in points of belief opposite to the former belief Behold a clear reason why I appropriate this promise to our Bishops and Church and not to yours the Holy Ghost could not teach those guides of the Church forever who for a vast long time of many ages were not in the World Shew me a succession in all Ages of the guides or lawful Pastors of any Church houlding your Texts in points differing from ours and then I must labour to find a reason why I say the Holy Ghost ever since Christs time guided the lawful Pastors of our Church into all truth rather then the lawful Pastors of your Church which Pastors had no being in the Church or world and consequently no capacity to be guided into all truth 31 A Sixth Text to prove this assistance to be extended to infallibility is 4 Ephes whence appeareth that the end and intention of Christ in giving us who were visible in all ages Doctors and Pastors for all ages was such an end and such an intention as could not be compassed by such Doctors and Pastors as might lead us into circumvention of errour even then when they where assembled together to deliver the truth from their highest tribunal in a General Council How pittifully would the Saints be consummated by such Doctors How pittifully would the work of the Ministry be performed how pittifully would the Body of Christ be edified by such Doctors and Pastors Lastly how impossible would it be for us by the having of such doctors and Pastors that wee now provided of such guides be not children wavering and carried about with the wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men in craftiness in circumvention of error You see St. Paul affirms the Doctors and Pastors which are given unto us to be given for this end and consequently sufficiently assisted to the same that we may securely rest in their doctrine which we may not do in any erroneous doctrine be the errour little or great For it were a ridiculous thing to say we were to rest circumvented in error least we should fall into circumvention of error The assistance therefore is such as preserves from all error and such an assistance was proportionable to Gods intention of Securing us from having reason to waver or to be changing and changing so to cure some curable errors with which we feared to be circumvented whereas by the unanimous doctrine of these Doctors and Pastors God intended to preserve us sufficiently from ever falling into circumvention of errour 32. A seventh Text to prove the assistance of the Holy Ghost given to the Church to be extended to infallibility is taken from Esay chap. 56. verse 20. and 21. where God speaketh of the Church of Christ to which after his coming many of the Jewes were to unite themselves according to the interpretation of Saint Paul 18. Romans verse 26. Thus God by Esay The redeemer shall come to Sion and unto them who by uniting themselves to Christs Church shall turne from transgression in Jacob saith the Lord. Note here that the words which our Lord is going to say are spoken to the visible Church to wit that Church to which rhe Jewes did unite themselves being baptized in it instructed in it governed by it c. Now our Lord to this Church visibly Baptizing instructing governing c. saith As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My spirit that is upon thee and my words free from errour in all points great and little which I have put in thy mouth that mouth by which thou visibly dost teach all Nations shall not depart out of this thy mouth Nor out of the mouth of thy seed Nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever Behold here the Spirit of Truth entailed upon the Church for all Ages never departing from her mouth Nor the mouth of her seeds seed which not departing from the mouth by which visibly she teacheth instructeth and governeth sheweth this Spirit entayled upon the Church as Visible and not as Invisible as you would have it And this not departing of his Spirit from her Mouth is a no lesse cleare then eloquent expression of her infallibility in her doctrine for Gods Spirit or Word is not in a Mouth teaching error Agaâ—n a promise of not departing from her mouth from thenceforth and for ever maketh it evident that this last thousand yeares there was some visible Church whose Prelates and Pastors did shew their Heads and open their Mouthes in teaching truth And yet what was visibly taught all this while was in all points debated between you and us opposit to you By the way note how unjustly you not long since taxed those of coming neer blasphemy who said that God did speak to us and teach us by his Church What mean these words My Words shall not depart out of thy Mouth Nor out of the Mouth of thy seed nor of thy seeds seed 33 Hence for an Eight Text I may well alledge what this Prophet infers from hence in the Next Chapter where he triumpheth in the Church thus teaching all Nations and there he addeth For the nation and Kingdom that shall not serve thee shall perish verse 12. Because if this Church should ever at any time fall to teach error Nations should do well and should further their salvation by forsaking her erring as the Protestants say they did And note how these words clearly shew that the Scripture speaketh of the Church visible which Nations and Kingdomes may find out and serve and must perish like publicans and Heathens if they doe not serve and obey she is therefore secured from error Hence verse 20. Thy sun shall no more goe down Neither shall the Moon withdraw it selfe For the Lord shall be thine everlasting light and the daies of thy Mourning shall be ended And in the next chapter to the Sons of this Church he promiseth That everlasting Joy shall be unto them verse 7. And in the next chapter last verse Thou shalt be called sought out a City not forsaken Had this Church been forsaken and left in such errors as are imputed to the Roman Church Christ had not been an Everlasting light to here whom he had left in such darknes for a thousand yeares
and therefore we cannot fasten them upon the mis-interpretation of Scripture and now you denie to me the Assumption and you say the Church doth not invest infalibility in the Pope but as defining with a lawfull Councell generall you meane Well then Liberius is not defended in the point of subscription as neither you nor Bellarmin can defend him but yet you defend the Roman infalibility in faith because as you say he was not the Subject of it Rather than infalibilitie should be disparaged the Pope shall be degraded from his infalibilitie This you say here occasionally to denie unto me the use of this instance but this is not the seat of the matter therefore we shall say here no more than is necessarie And first you had no great cause here to except against the assumption since you grant the consequence of the Conclusion 2. You should consider what you say that the Pope of himself is not the Subject of infalibilitie for by this you raise a war against you of your Roman Catholicks which did think they knew the sense of the Roman faith as well as you for sure you are not more than a private Doctor All the Canonists you know are against you and the Jesuites are against you particularly Bellarmin in his 2 b. de Concil Autor 15. Ch. Where he maintaines this position that the Pope is the Head of the whole Church Where he hath this argument Ecclesia universalis est unum corpus visibile ergo habere debet unum Caput visibile The universall Church is one visible Bodie therefore it must have one visible Head otherwise it will seem a Monster But we cannot imagin any other but the Pope Therefore the Pope is the Head of the whole Church simul together so he and that is of a Councill And so it was determined in the Lateran Councill Now where shall be the infalibilitie of the Church placed then but in the head of a councill You are all wont to say that the Church is infalible and a Councel infallible and that the Pope is infalible Now how will you com-promise the truth of these but by saying the Church is infallible by the Councill and the Councell by the Pope Then the Pope is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this infalibilitie The Church formally taken is the multitude of the Faithfull the Church representatively is the Councell the Church virtually is the Pope If the first subject receptive of Autority be the people then do you lay the ground of the Independents if the Councill then the Pope hath his power from them and so he is not the immediate Vicar of Christ as Bell. in the former b. and ch the 15. And then also what will become of the condition of the primitive Church wherein there was so long a time before any General Councel And then also in reason there should be a General standing Councel if infalibility primarily flows from them And have the Council a coordinate power or subordinate Which will you say If coordinate then to be sure the Pope is not Head of the Church which you will be loath to say If subordinate then he is Head and therefore infalibility must be subjected in him as Prince of the Church unless you will divide infalibilitie from Authority And if so what Autoritie will there be of this infalibilitie But to go on You tell me that those Doctors who are of that opinion that the Pope cannot erre in defining out of a general Councel have other answers to your objections So you put me to seek for their answers You will not tell me who they are nor what they are nor where they are to be found So then as to them my objections are proper and their opinions may be as probable or more than yours and it may seem more and therefore you will not condemne your own opinion by comparing with their answers for if their Answers be solid then your opinion is nought And then you are pleased to put me off thus but that which you say is nothing against our faith which no man though never so little a French-man will say obligeth us to hold the Pope infallible in defining out of a Generall Councell Ans But that which you say is nothing against the faith of others which no man though never so little a Courtier at Rome will say obligeth them to hold the Pope not infalible in defining out of a general Councel But why do you say our faith Is your faith the same with the faith of the Roman Court If not then you divide from them If so then you must hold that none are true Catholicks in your sense but those who hold themselves such by Subjection to the Bishop of Rome not as in a Councell but simply to him Yea do you not think that you must necessarily be subject to the Laterean Councill which had the Popes consent and that determined the thing expressissime as Bel. in his second b. de Concil cap. 13. Namely that the Pope is above the Councel in a sense opposite to the Counsell of Constance and Basill who defined a Generall Councell above the Pope and could infalibly determine without him And if you say that Belarmin said there some did doubt whether the Laterean Councell was a generall Councell yet you must tell us your opinion what you hold of this Councel yea in his seventeenth ch he defends it for a generall Councel and holds the point to be a decree concerning faith but saies it is a doubt that the Councell did not decree it proprie ut decretum fide Catholicae tenendum and therefore they that think otherwise are not properly hereticks yet canot be excused from great temeritie However I hope that Councel was more considerable with you than the judgment of private Doctors yea also than the French Catholicks Yea if you will be a right French-man in this opinion you should hold that the Councell may be infalible reclamante Papa and this comes up to the stresse of the question and therefore you do not speak determinately your opinion concerning the right state of the question but you do latere post principia in saying that no French-man will say you are obliged to hold the Pope infalible in defining out a Generall Councell If you be a French-man in this speak out and tell us your opinion not conjunctively but disjunctively whether the Councell may be infalible without the Pope But I commend your wisdome that you hold the safest way For this Bellar. and all will say that the Pope defining with a Councell cannot erre But Bellarmin will also hold infalibilitie to be in the Pope who is the head of the whole Church even congregated and that all Authoritie is in him as the Monarch of the Church but in this you are an Ephectick So certainly you do agree amongst your selves about the Capital point of the Roman infalibilitie As one said in another case of action so may I say
then thirdly Why do you dispute with us concerning the Authority of Scriptures by the Church since we have admitted the Scriptures for the word of God And therefore should you not urge us to the acknowledgement of Scriptures by the Authoritie of the Church but wholly to the acknowledgement of the Church by the Authority of the Scriptures Paragr 5. In the fifth Par. you say you charge me with abating from my first proposition in which I said Divine faith in all things was caused by the proposall of the Church because now I say that when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture Ans And I cannot yet bate you an ace of my charge For your termes are of a believing indefinitely upon proposall of the Church as if 't were the immediate formall cause of all faith and so severall of your Arguments would prove that the Scripture is not at all our rule but the Church And this your first paper made to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore if you had clearly intended the dispute of this point whether we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the Authoritie of the Church and so consequently or causally all to be believed for the Church you should have made this the state of the main question But now you say when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture And do you not go lesse now Do but compare the quantities of your assertions before all things to be believed upon and for the proposall of the Church now some things may be believed for the Scripture which are plainly contained in it And the Church and the Scripture are in our case opposed so then if first all is to be believed by the Authoritie of the Church and now some things clearly contained may be believed upon Scripture then do you not onely abate but contradict your self in effect for it will come to this all is to be believed upon the proposal of the Church somwhat may be believed not upon the proposal of the Church but of Scripture For when we are assured you say that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are plainly contained in Scripture then we are to believe it upon the account of the word of God And your Church can have no higher Authoritie surely than God's word for it Therefore if you say we are to believe what is plainly contained in Scripture when we are assured by the Church that it is the word of God for the authoritie of the Church then I pray tell me why we should believe the Church if not for the word of God Again to consider these words of yours if we must be assured by infalible Authority of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before we can believe what is plainly contained therein then either one of us must yeild upon the case of the infalibilitie of the Church or else nothing plainly contained in Scripture can be by your opinion believed But you think that some things are plainly set down in Scripture though elsewhere you would conclude as if all things in Scripture were obscure and so you now also abate in this and herein we both agree and we think the Church's Authority is not infalible wherein we differ from you Now which think you in reason should yeild you or we One would think you should yeild rather since we can prove that whatsoever is contained in Scripture is to be believed without the Authoritie of the Church and you cannot prove the Authority of the Church to be plainly contained in Scripture yea must yet believe upon your principles the infalible Authority of the Church before you can believe it though plainly contained in Scripture because you must first be assured by the infalible Authoritie of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before you do believe what is contained in Scripture And again thirdly we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God why may not we then have leave to believe things plainly contained in Scripture Certa sunt in paucis as Tertullian saith We say certain necessary truths are not so many Why are not we then well grounded in Religion surely in your account because we do not go to divine faith by your infalible Church Even as the death of Remus it was ordained by Romulus that whosoever went over the trench at the building of Rome any other than the ordinary way should be put to death so Zâ—n 2. An. because we do not go the ordinarie Roman way to the building of us in our most holy faith we must die for ever As if our faith were not true Divine faith because it is not implicit by the Church Which is as much as to say the obedience of faith is not good because it is not blind And this is as much as to say we do not see because we do not see And therefore fourthly since as hath been shewed the authority of the Church is resolved into Scripture and since you have confessed that we may admit the Scriptures to be the word of God and yet may need to be assured of the Authoritie of the Church your apologie for your self in this paragraph must needs be insufficient In the sixth Par. You begin with taking notice of my character of my self to be one of the slender sons of the Church of England whether so or whether he hath shewed that Treatise of mine to be no demonstration Let the indefferent reader after the due pondering the force of all Arguments determine Sir I dare not alter my small opinion of my self And therefore the consideration of such matters should have dropped from a judicious head into a learned pen. And if your demonstration as you call it be indeed such as doth merit the terme you have proved me to be no better than my word And if I prove it to be no demonstration I do not yet falsifie what I said of my self For I shall impute the cause of it to our cause the weakest hand may defend our cause the strongest cannot defend yours To passe this you go on Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you adde the Scripture is infalible but the Church is not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture Ans But you leave out the scope of this Argumentation and the formalitie of the conclusion You spake of as clear a Demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter I told you it was hard to say who does optimum quod sic Well but then I wished you to put it to the test and to try the debate of it by this rule of wisdome and
reason may this be called the Pontificians use plenty of the Fathers against us therefore he will not answer to my testimonies from them nor to my answers to his testimonies against us Doe any of those Pontificians fully answer my testimonies and doe they sufficiently take off my answers If they doe he should have told me which and where But were I as apt to brag as the Romans are I might not be far from crying victoria that I should stand to answer the Fathers and bring them to stand for us though my Adversary saies I bring them to lesse than nothing and yet he that makes so much of them in shew should detrect this way of plea by them Whereas their small errors used presently to be discovered and cryed down This is not altogether true For how many of their errors continued long yea great errors also as the Millenarie opinion And Infant Communion was not presently decreed neither Therefore yet it remaines to be proved that any of the points of difference betwixt the Papists and us was a standing opinion of the Primitive times which my Adversary would insinuate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it would make a learned man amazed to ask as you do how few of them have touched upon our differences Ans There is no such cause of Amazement Learned men in generall wonder lesse and learned men cannot wonder particularly at this as knowing the reason which was added by me having not occasion by Adversaries and therefore doth my Adversary wisely passe by any mention of the reason as not being pertinent for his use But also was that I said well guarded first how few I did not say none Secondly I said touched namely as to handle and this is necessary to be believed because indeed there were few of them Argumentative then though some of them might put out occasionally some expressions relating to our differences yet is not this to touch argumentatively our differences for aliud agentis parva autoritas as the rule is And then thirdly if many of them at least did not touch so as to handle discursively all our differences there is no cause of admiring my speech for if they had handled some not all how should we have been directed in those which they had not handled Now then let all be considered then upon the whole matter let me say this that if any Pontifician can prove that many of them did handle argumentatively all the points of debate betwixt us then I shall give leave for the amazement of my expression Therefore as to the Authors he produceth of his side who give account of the Fathers in our diffâ—rences as Coccius Gualterus the Author of the Progeny of the Catholicks and Protestants or any other named by any other I say this that he should have told me particulary where each of them doth produce any Father and in what point and also should have shewed in them that many Fathers have all conjunctively spoken of the severall points and also that they have spoken of them directly on purpose where the seat of the matter was and also that no where they contradict what in one place they said or at least did not elsewhere speak doubtingly otherwise he concludes not any thing of weight against me And then secondly I can returne my Adversary number for number and weight for weight of our own who have answered all the testimonies of the Fathers which their learned Champions have produced as Bishop Jewell Dr. Whitaker Dr. Reynolds besides Chamier of France who have refuted the instances of the Fathers Yea the challenge of the first of them was never yet well answered as to the testimony of the Fathers And thirdly either the Fathers cannot be brought in with their suffrages for them or they can if they cannot why doth Campian and others crack and brag of the Fathers and then also my Adversaries Authors are disannulled If they can then either the Fathers speak contradictions since we produce them as well for us and therefore cannot we be ruled by them or else my Adversary needed not to have shifted the answering to them but might have found other passages out of them to have commodiously reconciled the seeming variance Yea then either my Adversary had not such cause to rest infallibity in a Council if all the Fathers of all ages agreed or the consent of the Fathers might be a rule to the Council and then my discourse of the Fathers had good conjunction with the Controversie about Councils As for the Author of the Progeny of Catholicks and Protestants whom he brings in here as handling a part all our main differences and doth in all these points give us the very words of our own chief Doctors clearly acknowledging a great number of holy Fathers directly opposit to us in each one of these points To this I answer that it is possible some of our Church may not meet with right editions of the Fathers might not discerne their true works might mistake the sense and application of some words or not being able dexterously to reconcile their expressions to some other passages of the Fathers and to our opinions might conclude them as opposit If this Argument were good then are they also bound to conclude the Fathers to be on our side because Bellarmin produceth in his Disputations testimonies of the Fathers for us Indeed he endeavours to answer those testimonies but I dare affirme that severall of those testimonies which the Author hath produced from our own side of the Fathers may as well be answered as some of those which Bellarmin answers Thirdly my Adversaries might have known also that there is a book written by none of ours which is a Confutation of Papists by Papists So then if they will set our Divines against us we can set their Divines against them yea also in severall points were the testimonies of the Primitive Church urged against some of their points in the Trent Council by some of their Church Fourthly I have read Breerley through it being commended to me by one who thought I think thereby to convince me in the case and I can give no other account than as Mr. Chillingworth doth that he hath not dealt exactly with the Confessions of those of our Church as in the instance of some passages out of Mr. Hooker as may be seen in Mr. Chillingworth page 62. As also in a passage of Luther as may be seen in Mr. Chilling If the pages 79 and 92 be compared And therefore have we no reason to be concluded against upon his word yea some of the authorities he bringeth do not respect the main points betwixt us and as I remember some authorities are not contradictory to our cause and therefore was I rather confirmed by reading of that book And therefore groundlesse is my Adversaries excuse for not medling with the holy Fathers in this Controversie betwixt us Though they did not professedly discusse and determine our questions and
he constitutes the sense imperially not expounds it rationally and makes his authority antecedent to the sense and not the sense antecedent to their definition but ipso facto this must be the meaning thereof because he saith so Is this a clearing of the Scripture Fifthly it must be clear to me that the Councils have cleared the difficulty otherwise I should deny my assent to the text because it is not clear in the construction and yet should give my assent to the Councils determination and yet this not clear to me neither Now then if they will have us judge of the definition of the Council that so we may determine our assent for we must by judgement conclude the Council clearly to determine the sense in question or else we cannot give any due assent why will they not allow us to judge also of the sense of Scripture that so rationally we may believe it Sixthly as the clarity is wanting as I suppose he means but to some texts so also but to some persons and therefore is there not an absolute need to all of this infallible Judge Yea how many took liberty to suspend their assents to the determinations of the Council of Trent and yet they would have a Council to be binding to others Seventhly is the defect of the degree of claritude negative or privative not privative for that will charge God And so that of Nilus will be true to be sure he that accuseth the Scripture accuseth God but if negative it is no other than God thought fit for his word And do we think that God would require under pain of damnation belief to his word and yet not give unto it competent clearnesse respectively to the points of faith necessary to be believed Eighthly what then must we think as towards their salvation of all those antient Christians for some centuries wherein they had not a Generall Council were they all lost Or had they faith without a Generall Council If the former how do they say the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church And why do they also not dis-acknowledge those times of the Church to have been the purest And were so many of them Martyrs and yet lost But if the latter then also may we have faith without a Generall Council sufficiently to salvation Ninthly the senses of Scripture as to particular points were clear to the Fathers in the Council severally before they gave their suffrages on either part were they not If not how came they to vote for that sense which was right If so then the product of the Councils definition is not it which clears the sense of the Scripture to them and consequently not to us Tenthly and lastly if the Scripture doth not give us clear texts for all points necessary and therefore we must stand to the authority of the Church then also the Church shall not be it upon which we rely as a competent Judge because the Church even in a Council doth not deliver the sense of Scripture so clearely as to end all controversies And this manifestly appears by perusall of the Trent History wherein it frequently occurs that the Decrees and Canons were so framed as to give a liberty of divers senses for more satisfaction and satisfaction to more And this last account in this last particular doth make sufficient reply to what he speaks in the ten next following lines wherein he objects to me the difference of those amongst us to proceed from our acknowledgement of Scripture to be the triall of faith Surely he did not the same day consider the differences at home It is not proper to object that which is common we can retort it mutatis mutandis And we see with our eys those who submit to the authority of the Church as infallible to disagree mainly in these very points which the Synod hath spoken of for one thinketh in his Conscience the Church is to be understood one way another thinketh in his Conscience it is to be understood another way and this other is licensed interpretatively by the Synod to differ even from the greatest authority upon earth as the other thinks because he thinks the Synod hath defined for him And then he may easily have license to differ from another private man and that other private man hath as good ground to differ from the other So our Adversaries incussion of our differences amongst us is patly repercussed upon them and with more weight and edge too because secondly we holding a difference of points by the matter are capable of more excuse for our disagreements in things not fundamentall than they who holding all equally upon the proposall of the Church must needs differ in that which is equally fundamentall because all that is defined by the Church is equally so Yea also he that errs in one point with the Papists according to Mr. Knot 's argument hath faith in none And one of them that differ about the sense of the Council must needs err though it is undetermined which And therefore thirdly would not my Adversaries have been pleased with such an argument from me The Pontificians do disagree therefore their opinion is the cause thereof and if that should be the cause we should all disagree and in all Neither fourthly doe we license any to differ but they take their natural liberty to suspend assent till they see the word of God as well as upon good reasons you move men to chuse your Religion And therefore as to necessaries Scripture is the possible means of Vnion in the interior man in which faith onely doth consist And this Union we are to consider in order to Salvation not the exteriour union which is not so necessary though simply desirable As far as truth will go it must go with it but not further And yet this is now and then mingled in the discourse of my Adversary and very politickly because the Church hath more conjunction with an exteriour union of peace than an interiour of faith What you add of God his sufficiently providing for his Church by Scripture onely is in this sense true that in Scripture we read that we are to hear the Church c. Ans Surely I do not owe in ingenuity any thanks to any Adversary of mine for this that they seem thus to please themselves in a study how to make our opinion tollerable If I do I will soon be out of debt as soon as I can say that their opinion about the Church to be the High way to truth is so far true because it was wont to send us to the Scripture for our rule of faith and manners as hath been shewed Secondly what Council ever determined the sense of that precept goe tell the Church to be understood of a Council as to bind absolutely to the belief of all that they propound And if a Council had not defined this the sense then how shall we know it to be the sense by my Adversary because
these are plainly enough set down in Scripture if the Roman Church had not disturbed the clear waters for the chief Fisher and if not the Church by positive law cannot appoint that which is absolutely necessary to salvation All things that are of Divine right are not simply necessary to salvation to be sure then what is not of Divine but positive right as the Romans have also distinguished is not simply necessary And therefore whereas he says there are endles Controversies about them I am of his opinion in my sense of the words for they are to no end amongst those who have a sober mind to be directed in them by Scripture at least they are to no end as in order to our dispute because they come not within compasse of absolute necessity to salvation It may be necessary to know how these are to be ordered that they may be ordered rightly but this is not absolutely necessary to salvation yea again if these things were left to the Church we must take the order before the Councils otherwise the Church before the time of Councils had wanted that which was necessary and therefore indeed are they not necessary or else God had been wanting to them in necessaries A third sort of things necessary not plainly set down as he thinks we have in his fourth number Num 4. All being obliged to serve God in a true Church c. This is ambiguously delivered either as in sensu composito being in a true Church they are obliged to serve God in it or are bound to finde out the true Church and then to serve God in it Now though both belong to our duty yet both are not equally necessary because it is possible in that which is not a true Church if so many things be necessary to a true Church as they would have salvation may be had by simple ignorance and gerall repentance And I hope some were saved before a Church with all the integrants of a true Church was framed But in a true Church no man can be saved without serving of God The Church of the Donatists was not accounted by St. Austin nor my Adversary a true Church yet St. Austin did not deny but some might be saved in it Now this is understood by my Adversary in the latter way namely that every one is bound to finde out the true Church and to serve God in it for so it followeth Having a lawfull succession of true Pastors truely ordained themselves and truely ordaining the Priests who must be known to administer true Sacraments in their true matter and forme Preaching also the word of God by lawfull mission Ans Now me thinks the Romans with their mountains should have relation to Montanus who fansied that the Paraclet did by priviledge come into him to make up what was wanting to salvation by inspiration For we must have infallible notes of a Church which the word of God in Scripture hath not appointed to us And we must have things necessary to salvation which the Scripture hath not made necessary yet they must be necessary to salvation for their use Certainly as he gives well the cognisance of a good man so may we also make use of it for a good Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we ought not to judge honest men by their performances but by their purpose so we ought to esteem good Christians not by their happinesse to finde but by their purpose to finde out the true Church which cannot reasonably be done by a lawfull sucession First because this is accidentall not as to salvation onely but as to a true Church and therefore can be no certain and universall rule for how came the first Church which was originall to the Descendants to be a true Church yea secondly how will the true Church be a true Church according to their principles in the time of Antichrist when there is not like to be according to their profession almost any face of a Church How shall it then be discerned by a lawfull succession of Pastors Thirdly this cannot be characteristicall of the Roman Church which they would have to be the onely true Church because the Greek Church may challenge this priviledge also Yea fourthly it is possible that a false Church may so fairly plead a lawfull succession as the Church of the Donatists who had also Bishops as to those who should come a long while after them that it could not be easily discerned by common people and therefore this is not the way so plain and direct as that fools cannot err Yea fifthly we are not to discern true Doctrine by the persons but the persons by the Doctrine according to Tertullian as before and therefore if true Doctrine be not proved by succession as it cannot be because then it should be measured by the person we cannot conclude a true Church by the succession since all sober men will rather argue thus that is a true Church which professeth true Doctrine than that Church professeth true Doctrine because it hath a true succession of Pastors Yea sixthly did my Adversary mean what he said of a particular Church or of the universall Church Not of a particular Church sure for that cannot be the way and Judge of all Christians as he intended But then of the universall Catholick Church Well then he must mean that that is the true Catholick Church which hath a lawfull succession of Pastors namely of Bishops of Rome who is by them called signantly the Pastor of the Church This must be his meaning in reason because the lawfull succession of Pastors in particular Churches is by my Adversary necessary for themselves but not for the Catholick Church which can consist without those parts which are not true and therefore no parts And this is like to be his meaning by his opinion So then the Roman Church he would have here by the premisses to be the true Church as being supposed to have a lawfull succession of Pastors namely Bishops of Rome But how shall we give up our selves in absolute obedience to the guidance of the Roman Church if this were an infallible and constitutive mark of the true Church that it hath a lawfull succession of Pastors For no man can have so much as a morall certitude that there hath been in Rome from St. Peter an interrupted lawfull succession of Pastors much lesse can he have a Divine perswasion thereof For first it can never be proved by Scripture that St. Peter was at Rome I do not deny it that he was ever there but it is no object of faith And the Romanists are shrewdly put to it for a proof when to prove it they would interpret Babylon from which St. Peter writes to be Rome But then Secondly St. Peter should rather have derived the Priviledge of universall jurisdiction and infallible direction to Antioch as is abserved where he sate first seven years as Caranza sets it down and where Christians had their name
shewing it to be true Scripture more than they discover in the books of Judith and Tobit shewing them to be true Scripture Ans My Adversary here was very bold to bring into equall compare the books of Judith and Tobit with the book of Numbers one book of the Pentateuch as to the Autopisty thereof But the Jews who say that every letter of Scripture makes a mountain of sense could see more in the book of Numbers than in those Apocryphal books Therefore if we would resolve the acceptance of one and the refusall of the other into a reason of both and ask why the Jew acknowledged the book of Numbers not the other we must find that the acceptance of the one and the disacceptance of the other cannot fall into the account of the Jewish Church its authority because the question will rebound why the Jewish Church did authorize one and not the other And therefore my Adversary gets nothing by this objection for the Church cannot be the reason of the approbation of the one and the preterition of the other because this difference made by the Church must be determined by a judicious act upon good cause For do they dream that the Church hath an arbitrary power to receive one book and to expunge another out of the Canon Did they not excercise in it a judgement of discretion Now he that discernes sees betwixt two and sees cause why one should be taken the other left Every elective act casts the ballance upon more weight And therefore must we not take the recension of books canonicall from the power of the Church And then again secondly this availes not the Roman Church because if the discerning of books canonicall did autocratorically depend upon the Church its declaration yet as it is noted not upon a particular Church 〈◊〉 the universall Church for time and place 〈…〉 the books of Tobit and Judith are 〈◊〉 numbred as Canonicall amongst the rest by the Canon of the Apostles as Caranza sets them out And therefore they saw nothing in them for their reception and yet did in others And if it belongs to the Church authoritatively to declare what books are Canonicall yet cannot the Church have authority to declare more than the Apostles constituted if they take those Canons to be Canons of the Apostles for otherwise they must challenge a power to the Church not only of declaring what is Canonicall but also of making it such which is more than their great Doctors dare affirm And if they will still plead those books Canonicall let them answer it to St. Jerom and St. Cyrill of Jerusalem and to the rest whom they think not to have differed from the Church and yet have differed from them in this But those who will swear no difference we may say are not willing to see it Secondly they must infallibly shew that this very verse in which I find this point is not thrust in amongst other true parts of Scripture or some word changing the sense either thrust in or left out in this verse and this they must know infallibly Ans Again I must say that we are upon the supposall of Scripture and therefore this should not be called into question which is the subject but this for more tediousnesse must be brought in upon all occasions or none But for the uncorruptednes of the text if they will not believe me let them believe Bellarmin as before who denies any substantiall corruption but then again we are as sure as they for we have for it all the authority the Church hath if it be infallible we have it Again the Scripture is corrupted or not If so then by the Roman Church or by some other Not by the Roman Church they will say then by some other is it corrupted If by any other then first how well have they been keepers of Canonicall truth and how then shall we trust them Secondly if corrupted then how do they know that those texts which are produced for them are not corrupted If by the Church they know them not to be corrupted this is the question which is to be proved and therefore cannot yet prove it For as they say we cannot know the Scripture to be infallible by the Scripture so neither can we know infallibly the Church to be infallible by the Church Though it were infallible yet this must be also known infallibly according to my Adversaries argument Indeed if the word of God did leave witnesse to its infallibility then we are satisfied but if the texts of Scripture be corrupted how shall I be sure whether those they make use of be not corrupted Therefore had they best for ever close their mouths against any corruption of Scripture untill they can sufficiently prove that the authority of the Church is principium primo primum in Divinity For the testimony of the Church cannot exceed of it self its genus It can make no more than an high opinion which comes short of and is too low for infallible assurance But then moreover this objection is retorted upon them How can we be infallibly assured that in the Decrees and Canons of Council there should be no corruption that one thing is not thrust in or somewhat left out since we know that there was a falsification of the Nicene Council as before Since they have corrupted passages of the Fathers as before Since some words of the Decrees of the Council of Trent were changed after the vote as appear in the History So then in this respect as in others we may conclude they have no reason to accuse our way of uncertaintie for we may be sure of this that no way is so full of uncertainties as theirs If the Scripture be true they may be a Church if false they may be Heathens What he says Thirdly after all this c. hath in it no such difficultie as they imagin for the words themselves incorrupted do shew their own sense as being for the things necessary spoken in a plain and common acception And also their Decrees and Canons as before are to be sure more obnoxious to diversitie of sense because they were framed at least some of them for such a capacitie Neither if some things be expressed figuratively doth any such perplexity arise because the figurative expression doth not oppose the literall sense so much as it doth sometimes illustrate it And this kind of speech as to Sacraments in regard of the relation betwixt the sign and the thing signified is indeed naturall and proper Though the manner of speech be not proper simply yet quoad hoc as to Sacraments it is proper And my Adversary might have taken notice that St. Austin hath noted as before that things darkly set down in one place are to be compared with other places where they are delivered more clearly And therefore that which follows about the ambiguity in what sense we must take the words if we go by Scripture only might very well have been
not this also that a Minister of the Gospell may competently inform the people in the necessaries to salvation And if a Minister can do it surely the Church But the stresse of the discourse lies in this whether what the Church can doe may not sufficiently be done without the Church And then secondly if not without the Church whether it may not be done without the Church its infallibility Now to this last my Adversary speaks thus that he stands not upon this whether this competent direction should be called an infallible direction or not No doth he not Then he seemeth to yield that which he hath so much contended for the infallibilitie of the Church that that is not necessary He hath formerly urged the infallibility of the Church to ground faith now he either grants that we may be saved without faith or that faith may be grounded without infallibility which indeed in my opinion doth yield the cause But then also they will give us leave to note that the cause betwixt the Romanist and us as to verbum non Scriptum is also yielded hereby for if he will sit down with this postulate that the Church may competently direct us to happinesse through the Scriptures then the word not written is secluded from a competent direction to salvation For the word not written is absolutely contradistinguished to Scriptures And therefore I see no reason we should goe further in this work which is not so hard as tedious But that he calls us back with an Epanorthosis Though we think it most certain that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happinesse Well will they stand to this Where shall we have them If it can then as before If it cannot upon their second thoughts then we say absolute loquendo we grant it thus that the Church not proposing any infallible direction cannot competently direct us and therefore untill they prove the Church infallible in their traditions infallible too or as to the interpreting of Scripture they have no cause by their own argument to obtrude so often the authority of the Church because it is no competent direction to happiness unlesse it be infallible as they now think But take the Church as proposing Scripture which we have hitherto made plain sufficiently as to things necessary so though the Church be not infallible in its own direction yet being considered as bringing Scripture which is infallible it may competently direct unto happinesse And so these great magnifiers of the Church upon due account have left us in the field to defend the Church when they have left it We can make use of its competent direction with the Scripture which is certain and infallible They cannot make use of the Church without infallibility So then as the Catholick Moderator says of the reformed religion that it cannot be blamed in the point of justification since it lays hold upon that which can certainly save us namely the righteousnesse of Christ so also to be sure here we are on the surer hand because we make use of that which is certainly infallible the Scripture and also of that which gives us some competent direction the Church specially taking the Church universally for place and time It is no question that the present Church cannot end the present controversies Now because by the way I did say our Church could not err in damnative errors you conceive me to grant that it may err in points not damnative Ans This is well put in by the way I did say he spake it more than once and it appeared also to be spoken provisionally that there might be some refuge for the Church if it should be convicted of some error yet not damnative And surely it were better for them to lie close under the buckler of this distinction unlesse they had better arguments to prove universall infallibility But since it may be Mr. Knot 's inconveniences of that distinction have been found prevalent and so it is quitted He expounds himself thus When I said these words I did onely take and subsume that which you your selves most commonly grant unto the Church that it cannot err in damnative matters Ans This but one degree from a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says he meant it as we If he meant it as we how doth he conclude against us We hold it distinctively upon the case of the whole Catholick Church though a particular Church may err in points damnative So then he meaning it as we leaves the way plain to inferr that he held that the Church might err in points not damnative If he did take it as we we are agreed and then by Mr. Knot 's argument infallibility is extinguished He used it formerly in way of distinction and specificatively or not If not then the use of it formerly is none if so then he is lost And they may very easily perswade themselves that we can allow unto them this priviledge of the Church that it hath a main advantage over any Minister or private Interpreter This we can afford unto them without absolute infallibility of the Church If they will be contented with such a priviledge to the Church as no Minister or private Interpreter can have they need not exceed the distinction of the Church's not erring in damnatives specifically taken For a private Minister or Interpreter may erre in damnatives Yea also this exemption from errors damnative in this sense gives a demonstrative reason why we should not follow our own interpretations without apparent cause because the Church universall cannot err in damnatives therefore we should prefer that when we see not plain cause to the contrary and because it may err in other things therefore cannot we absolutely yield the Church obedience of faith for its own sake And our differences from the Church in interpretations are not therefore damnative simply because we differ from the Church but if we contemn the Church which hath authority and more faculty and if we wrest hard texts as some men did in St. Paul's Epistles to their own perdition as St. Peter saith Interpretations may be flatly contrary and not damnative till the Church be proved without possibility of error to be without possibility of error let them then hold the former distinction untill they can make good these two points first that the Church cannot err at all the second that all error is damnative These are two hard propositions and therefore if that which is most hard is most easily broken as the rule is in the Trent History they should do well to break them When the Church shall shew her Commission for her infallibility she may 〈…〉 Commission for our obedience intuitiâ—â— Num. 9. Here he begins I will presse again your text and give a second answer Namely the second Ep. to Tim. 3.16 So then now we shall contend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says we render the word for correction so your Bible reads it And why doth
unto salvation because Timothy as before and also with sufficient plainnesse since the old Testament could do it before the new was consigned but the Scripture taken in complexo doth so Therefore this text is sufficiently full and clear against them And his argument out of this text against me wherein he says he hath a contradictory conclusion against me we will now hear this it is That which in this text is said onely to be profitable for these ends is not thereby said to be sufficient to these ends and yet much lesse sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone but the Scripture in this text is said onely to be profitable to these ends here expressed Ergo Ans The Answer unto this of his may maintains the major of my last Syllogism For thus Estius and my Adversary distinguish upon the major that the Scripture may be profitable and not necessary for these ends and so in effect the Rhemists upon the text that the reading of the Holy Scripture is a great defence and help of the faithfull especially of a Bishop And this is the ground of his Argument We answer therefore first if he means his major thus that what is not said in terms to be so is not said so by consequence neither his minor is not true And if he mean it otherwise it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for we can acknowledge his Conclusion without prejudice to our cause for though it be not said so in terms yet by equivalence and interpretative it is Secondly to the minor we say though it be only said to be profitable yet since it is not said that it is onely profitable it doth not exclude sufficiency that which affirms so much simply doth not simply deny more for then we could no way reconcile divers historicall passages of the Evangelists But that it doth include sufficiency Bellarmin and my Adversary do deny Bellarmin to Chemnitius my Adversary to me Yet Bellarmin stands not so much against the term as if it could not be understood sufficient but contends that the Scripture is not sufficient alone as meat though it be profitable to nutrition yet it is not sufficient alone For if naturall heat be wanting or any other Instrument of the body necessary to nutrition it will not nourish in his fourth B. de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 10. But what is this to the purpose For we doe not maintain the Scripture to be sufficient to salvation alone for there must be faith and repentance and obedience And therefore St. Paul adds upon the place through faith that is in Christ Jesus but we say it is sufficient in suo genere as to direction of us this satisfies our cause If this be confessed we have done As meat is sufficient as to the matter which should nourish so the word of God is sufficient as to the matter of things necessary to be known yea for our comfort too as Isid Clarius upon the text and therefore he says when St. Paul had used many consolations he useth here the greatest For surely it is the most strong consolation to have the Scripture sent from Heaven quae et tantis in tenebris lumen praeferat et gravissima quaeque efficiat ut fiant levia And these comforts he says he did seasonably give him when he was to tell him of the sad news of his departure And as for the word there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we would take aim of the sense by the Syriack since the Greek intimates the Hebrew in the new Testament and the Syriack is called the Hebrew in the new Testament it seems to be so profitable as is sufficient because the word for profitable in the Syriack is taken from a word which signifies to abound and exceed Thirdly although all that is profitable is not sufficient though all that is sufficient is profitable yet that which is profitable ut sic as to perfection seems very sufficient That which helps him to perfection helps him sufficiently quoad hoc as to point of knowledge And if it extends not to sufficencie in the expression the reason may be because other things also are profitable practically And therefore is sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone Because there need not be any controversies necessary to salvation yea rather necessary it is that there should be no Controversies about things necessary to salvation because possibility of error in those things is so dangerous And therefore he supposeth that which is not to be supposed For the man of God may be perfect by Scripture ready furnished to every good work The man of God to wit the Minister So St. Paul of Timothy according to proportion to the Jewish Title but thou man of God flie these things And this we strengthen with St. Crysostom's note upon the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simply partaking but with accuratenesse furnished and again before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Instead of me thou hast the Scriptures not traditions if you will learn any thing from thence you may so that the Fathers comment imports the Scripture to be sufficient as to learning If any thing else could be pretended as equally profitable then either St. Paul's teaching him but he was to depart and in stead of him he was to have the Scriptures or traditions but he saith not thou hast the word not written but thou hast the Scriptures and that the man of God by the Scripture may be with accuratenesse furnished Therefore untill they can find any thing sufficient without Scripture or any thing necessarily conducing to the sufficiency of Scripture we rest contented with our cause upon account of this text wherein also as usually by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lesse is said more is understood If the Pontificians had such a text for their cause this profitable text would have been made sufficient As for the third answer that St. Paul doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture whence he is most weakly cited to prove that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation We may not say that this is weakly urged For the argument proceeds a fortiori as before If part of the Canon if the old Testament be sufficient then the whole much more And if Traditions were necessary to be added to the old Testament as happily they will say why did God give us the new Testament And to be even with them again when they speak of the Roman Church we might also say this is weakly urged to prove the opinion of the whole Church because they do not speak of the whole Church Again when this is proved it is manifest that part of the whole Canon is lost How then know you the same necessary points not delivered in other parts of Scripture were not delivered in these parts of Scripture which are perished and so are come not to be extant
in writing Ans The former is I suppose proved more than they desire And to this we answer first if it be manifest that some part of Scripture is perished he might have told us which otherwise it seems it is not manifest No certain and manifest knowledge of the generall but by some particulars Secondly If any part be lost it is either of the old or of the new Testament if of the old the new hath the same matter as to sufficiency with clearnesse If of the new the old was able to make Timothy wise unto salvation And my Adversary might have known that not onely Mr. Chillingworth affirms that there is enough in one Gospel precisely necessary to salvation but also that their Bellarmin in the former B. and Ch. says that all the utilities of Scripture which here are rehearsed are found in the second Ep. of St. John If any book then be lost which we are not certain of nor they neither because for ought we know not defined by the Church yet by nis opinion namely Bellarmins that which remains may be profitable yea sufficient for those uses without an infallible Judge And again if any book of either Testament or any of both be lost this will redound to the prejudice of the Roman because they account that they onely are the Church and that the Church is the keeper of Divine truth then they have not faithfully preserved the truth of God and therefore if they were infallible in what they doe propose how should we trust them that what is delivered as truth they would keep since through their negligence they have let some book or books of Scripture perish Quis custodiet ipsos custodes But it may be they have kept traditions more faithfully Then surely the books of Scripture were lost with good discretion that it might reflect honor to the integrity of Traditions O sanctas Gentes quibus haec nascuntur in hortis Numina Your second Text to prove this is Heb. 4.12 Here is the text Num. 10. but where is the contradictory conclusion in terminis and that evidently that it is plainly set down in Scripture that the Scripture by it self alone is sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies c. Ans Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is The occasion of this began thus I was to dispute against the Judges authority to bind upon his own account as he might have noted had he pleased My argument was this the Judge determins by Scripture or not If not then he makes a new law and the authority of the Church in proposing Divine truths is immediate by the assistance of the Holy Ghost and not by disquisition which Stapleton denies in the beginning of his sixth generall Controversie if by Scripture then doth his determination bind by authority of Scripture whereof he is but a Minister This my Adversary says not a word unto Then ex abundanti I put this text to him to give him a check in the course of his exceptions against Scripture We do not say that the Scripture is formally a Judge but yet by this text we have so much said as amounts in effect to be a Judge internall by mediation of conscience which is more than their Judge infallible can pretend to And therefore as to the demand of a Contradictory Conclusion from hence I say this text was pertinently produced to that purpose I intended of it which was not that it should be a directory weapon against my Adversary but that it should be of use to cut off their Pleas against Scripture as that it is a dead letter not a living Judge it is living quick that it can do nothing it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it cannot decide controversies it is sharper than any two edged Sword As the law decides cases of right so it decides Controversies of faith And those points of faith pretended which are not contained therein it doth cut off If they say it cannot reach the Conscience What then can It is piercing to the dividing of soul and spirit joints and marrow If they say it cannot judge it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 criticall exactly judicative of the thoughts and notions of the heart But to come to the point he would have me shew that this sharpnesse is in order not onely to decide Controversies but also all necessary Controversies and to do this by it self alone And if not where is then your Contradictory Conclusion Ans It may decide Controversies and not necessary Controversies but if it decide necessary Controversies then to be sure it doth decide Controversies Our question is whether it determins necessary Controversies Yea neither are we bound to dispute the question because we said it not nor are we bound to make it good in their sense In our sense yet it doth sufficiently decide all necessary Controversies because it doth so plainly deliver things of necessary faith that there needs not be any decision of them by any inerrable Judge And then also secondly because if there be any question about necessary points the Scripture is the rule according to which it is to be determined And thirdly it doth in effect examine and judge in the inward man cases of opinion and of action which an externall Judge doth not as such because they are not known to him And in this regard I conceive that the heretick is said as before to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the law of God or of the Spirit of God in the law doth by his own Conscience condemn him in holding a materiall error against his own light Yea let them answer to their own Estius who upon the place saith that the Scripture hath the properties of God attributed to it and because God speaks to us by Scripture and therefore he saith Vt Gladius penetrat et laedit ita sermo Dei intuetur et punit Itaque significatur cognitio non nuda sed qualis est Judicis examinantis et cognoscentis ut puniat As the sword pierceth and woundeth so doth the word of God take notice and punish therefore is signified not a naked knowledge but such as is of a Judge examining and taking cognizance that it may punish Now because that which is not intended sometimes proves better than that which was intended as the rule is Melius est aliquando id quod est per accidens quam id quod est per se therefore may we draw an argument in form from hence thus That which judgeth and infallibly is an infallible Judge The Scripture judgeth so the text and Estius upon it and infallibly as they will confesse then the Scripture is an infallible Judge Now if it be an infallible Judge it is very reasonable that it should be an infallible Judge as to points necessary and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is no necessity of an externall infallible Judge as to determine faith for that is done by it there
Yea also so do the Rhemish Translators read it in the Imperative Are they also decived then how shall we be ascertained of the sense of Scripture by Rhemish Interpreters So Ferus also upon the place expounds it to be a direction to the Jews of searching the Scriptures out of a greedinesse to know the truth And again upon the latter words They are they which bear witnesse of me he says that Christ cites no place but speaks in generall tam ut ad quaerendum incitet both that he might incite them to seek And so also Stapleton reads it in his Principia Doctrinalia in the Imperative And also besides not so often do we find a verb of the Indicative mood to begin a sentence But then also fourthly the reason concludes it a duty and the duty concludes a command It concludes a duty thus that which bears witnesse of Christ being in doubt we are bound to search and they bear witnesse of Christ and were then in doubt therefore for that our Saviour should not affirm it but upon their opinion in that he saith for in them ye think to have eternall life is no materiall scruple because the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in other Authors so in Scripture is used by way of elegancie and then our Saviour says himself that they bear witnesse of him and therefore we have in them eternall life Doctrinally And so St. Austin in his 45. serm de verbis Domini says as expounding the place queritis me et non invenietis quare quia non scrutamini Scripturas quae testimonium perhibent de me yee seek me but shall not find me why because you do not search the Scriptures which bear witnesse of me Therefore may we conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is to be taken in the Imperative And therefore his exception that it follows not because they testifie clearly this one point whereof he spake therefore the Scriptures testifie cleerly all that is necessary to be believed in any point of Controversie necessary to salvation that exception falls down before my argument as Dagon before the Ark because it is not only grounded upon this that the Scriptures bear witnesse of him but also in that you think to have in them eternall life And this proposition if there were need we might prove by what was said before that which is able to make us wise unto salvation hath in it eternall life the Scriptures of the old Testament were able to make wise unto salvation therefore they have in them eternall life and by consequent they contain all things necessary to salvation And therefore though this excluded not the hearing of John or Christs Miracles as he would inferr as upon duty yet it excludes them as upon simple necessity to salvation Otherwise those who dyed before Christ and John could not have been saved The force of his ratiocination comes to as much as this as if because one had a great estate he could not live of lesse or as if because he can live of lesse he ought not to follow his calling whereby he may get more This is not the question whether we ought to hear whatsoever God says for this we affirm but this is the question whether it be said because it is necessary or necessary to be heard because it was said the former we deny The necessity was not antecedent to the diction but hearing hath it self to the diction as a necessary consequent So this text is yet good against him Onely he urgeth me with St. Cyrill's opinion of the mood and also Beza's I had thought he would have made no mention any more of any Father of the Church because he says I do not allow infallibility to their testimony It seems their authority must yet be good against us though not for us To Beza's judgement we will oppose quoad hominem the interpretation of the Rhemists and Ferus as before To St. Cyrill's authority we say we can confront it with St. Chrysostom's and yet we do not build upon the mood for the reason binds us Yet because he seems to have his mind turned in better affection to the Fathers it will be reasonable to set down St. Crysostom's words hereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sends them to the Scriptures And again also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And we therefore when we are to fight with Hereticks and are armed against them are strengthned from henee namely from the Scriptures for so it follows in him as a reason for all Scripture is given by inspiration c. Num. 12. Your fourth text is You err not knowing the Scriptures And from hence he demands a Contradictory Conclusion shall it be this Therefore all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Or rather this Therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture For this is the far stronger consequence Ans Indeed he seemed to love rather to baffle his Adversary than to answer him For here again he dislocates my answer that where it was proper it might not be answered and where it is not formally contradictory it may not seem opposite Doth this become men that would lead us the right way by truth to happinesse The citation of this text comes in to give him satisfaction unto his argument that if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge in all Controversies he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly this importing so exceedingly as it doth and yet he hath not done so To this I said we answer Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures in that he saith ye err not knowing the Scriptures and also adding the other text to Timothy All Scripture is given by inspiration and also 2. Ep. Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of Prophecy thus I said and also allowed him the use of externall Judges without necessity of infallibility and also I retorted his argument If Christ had intended the Church should have been the infallible Judge it importing so exceedingly he would have told us so clearly which he hath not done c. Now if all my texts be able to give a full account of our being obliged to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge externall it is enough for me and my purpose to which I used them but he cunningly draws that text from the proper use and shews it here not to be fit for a contradiction to that which formally is another question than that to which it was applyed but let these tricks go I will now take the texts together and from thence conclude contradictorily to the present question Whether all things necessary to salvation be plainly set down in Scripture thus If we be referred to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge then the Scripture doth plainly set down
unto habituall knowledge and yet error may come by want of actuall knowledge either negatively by not applying them or worse by misapplying them they take such opinions first as are of use to them then will draw Scripture to them as is observed but they should apply their opinion to Scripture not Scripture to their opinion Sixthly and lastly he did not consider how near he came to Blasphemy by comming so near to a contradiction of Christ for Christ says to them Ye err not knowing the Scriptures and his consequence says by consequence that they might err though they did know the text because it doth not plainly set down the Resurrection whereby he makes either our Saviour to affirm that they could not know the Scripture which our Saviour plainly supposeth or else that the cause of not erring is not to know the Scriptures as to that point which how he will answer at that great day I know not And so his Syllogism comes to nothing or worse than nothing For if all things had been plainly set down they should not have erred but they erred therefore all things are not plainly set down His major is false If he takes should not have erred ex parte officii it is true but not to his purpose if he takes it ex parte event us it is to his purpose but not true It is not false that they might not have erred but that they could not err it is false A posse ad non posse non non valet Means are not always used or not as they should be We know our duty plainly in many things yet we do not do it This argument is good against him men have erred about the sense of the Trent Definitions as hath been said therefore all things are not plainly set down by the Church but this Argument is not good against us because we do not allow the form or rule of the argumentation His other answer is as uneffectuall that they might err in the knowledge of the Scriptures because in the reading of them they did follow their own private Interpretation which is the most ready way to err specially when men oppose the publick interpretation of the Church Ans And doth this conclude contradictorily to this proposition that they might not err if they attended to Scripture Secondly they might err if they attended to the Church because for ought is yet confirmed the Church may err and therefore the surer way is to attend to Scripture which they confesse is infallible Thirdly if he speaks of opposing the publick interpretation of the whole Church we allow more reverence to the universall Church than to theirs Fourthly is it necessary that every one who cannot submit intuitively to all the definitions of the Church in points of question should oppose the publick interpretation of the whole Church in plain points of faith Fifthly Maledict a glossa quae corrumpit textum This glosse corrupts the text for there is here a limitation of Christs words which else where he accuseth us of without any colour from the words of the Text. The Text disertly represents the cause of erring in this matter of the resurrection to be the not knowing of the Scriptures without any mention of the Church He will not afford it right unlesse we take in also obedience to the interpretation of the Church and his Church too for otherwise he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not then surely invested with the priviledge of infallibility which was not invested upon them as some of their most learned affirm til after the resurrection of Christ And therefore if this were true it were not pertinent Sixthly upon this whole matter it comes to this that it is with them better to believe the Church without the Scripture even in plain points than the Scripture without the Church for otherwise he comes not up to the state of our question And how good this Divinity is let those learned ones of their Church judge who will thus distinguish of the Scripture that it is necessary but not sufficient which also in my opinion is by them intended on the behalf of the Church indeed but not to bring in a new necessity of an infallible Judge in matters of Scripture expressed but to bring in necessity of Traditions in matters of Faith not expressed Num. 13. Your fifth text is 2. Pet. 1.19 We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto you do well that you take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place untill the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts His exceptions against the validitie of this text are two One that all things necessary to salvation are not there set down when S. Peter spake those words because the Canon was not finished This we have fully taken away before The other is thus how will you prove that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture because one thing is plainly set down Ans To this first take that which was said before about the concluding all points necessary to be plainly set down because that of the Resurrection is so with the reason thereof and the reason is good here also because he seems to confesse that that one point of Jesus's being the Son of God and the Messias might clearly be found in Scripture This me thinks then we have gained that one point is clearly set down in Scripture And this it may be conceived he might grant me because I could draw no consequence from thence against him for so he insists how will you infer ergo all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture We make use of it thus If this point be plainly set down in Scripture then other points also necessarily concerning his being the Messiah must also clearly be set down so then here is a wheel in a wheel yea many inclusively in one and those also clear but verum prius as it seems by his own confession Secondly if I should serve them with a quare impedit why do they not as well admit other points to be clearly set down in Scripture what will they say surely they will say that this point is plainly set down because it is so necessary Well then we reply If there be degrees of necessaries then we may be saved in any degree of necessaries Or if this be set down onely as necessary why not all necessaries For the rule is good A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia If that clearly set down as necessary then all things necessary are clearly set down The same reason is the principle of universality surely with God who doth all things in number weight and measure For although that Axiom Idem quae idem semper facit idem doth not always follow as in finite Agents because they may be defective in their power and there may be want of disposition in the matter they work upon but it cannot be
all the world also For all differences do arise either in Doctrine or Discipline if we take Doctrine as extendible not onely to points of simple faith but also to points of practice For then the Scripture should rule us in points of Doctrine and the Church in point of Discipline unto peace But his fair terms will not grow into a composition For he argues that the Scripture cannot be the Judge of Hereticks thus All Offendors against the Law will never be so much their own Condemnors as to chuse on their own accord a Judge by whom they know they shall clearly be condemned therefore when we see all Offendors against God's Law in point of Heresie chuse on their own accord to be judged by Scriptures it is a manifest sign that they know they shall never be condemned clearly by Scripture Ans This discourse in form seems an Enthymem but in effect is a Syllogism if we take a minor out of the consequent To the major therefore we say we are not here to examin what an Offendor would do to save his life but what we should doe to save our souls The question is of duty which we should be judged by Nay secondly the Offendor ought morally to refer himself to his right Judge notwithstanding his danger and in heresie we offend against the fundamentall Law of God in Scripture For though there be a respect to the Church in the common definition of heresie yet this opposition to the Church doth not constitute heresie but rather schism Heresie hath in it more of the matter about which the error is Schism hath more of the form in opposition to the Church because it is neither in things clearly commanded ordinarily nor in things necessary And so his argument from a manifest sign seems to be such a sign that he had no better but besides the minor which is couched wisely in the Consequent or Conclusion is also in part false for Hereticks have also pleaded the authority of the Church for themselves as hath been said and by his argument this is a manifest sign that they cannot clearly be condemned by the Church And then again secondly to the minor he supposeth hereticks rationall men because they do wisely decline as he thinks such a Judge as would clearly condemn them Well then they may desire to be judged by Scripture not because they cannot be clearly condemned thereby but because they know that that is the standard whereby their opinions are to be authorized and made good and because they are to deal with those who know there is no other way of solid reviction for the matter of heresie but by Scripture Thirdly the Adversaries might have known that as they have appealed to Scripture so also to the Scripture they have been sent by the Church so St. Austin dealt with Maximinus so St. Athanasius said the Nicene Fathers determined against the Arrians by Scripture as before hath been said If therefore they who in his opinion should have judged them judged them by authority of Scripture then Scripture is the Law by which they are to be judged And then the whole argument will be returned upon them mutatis mutandis thus All Offendors against the Law of God of their own accord would not chuse such a Judge by whom they know they shall clearly be condemned Therefore my Adversaries who are Offendors against the Law of God in Scripture of their own accord have no mind to be judged by Scripture and therefore they chuse to be judged by the Church which they interpret to be themselves thus as Hereticks of their own accord would be their own Judges so would our Adversaries with all their hearts then they agree with Hereticks And so it would pose him to find any one Heretick as it would pose me to find how my Adversaries Church should be condemned And as for the false glosses and interpretations whereby he thinks Hereticks may evade why should we again say that notwithstanding they were dealt with by Law of Scripture but also so there are false glosses and interpretations of former Councils and later too else how could some definitions be so set down as should please different parties And why so many differences still But is this an argument for Theologie they may use false glosses and interpretations therefore they are not to be judged by Scripture as good an argument will starve him for fear of poison in his meat And as for our giving of scope to these kind of glosses and Interpretations it is not so In maxima Libertate minima licentia Regular permission to search the Scriptures is no giving of scope to such glosses and interpretations then if so in stead of the Beroeans commendation for searching the Scriptures we must read condemnation For if Ministers may not give this libertie the people ought not to take it Neither do I against any Council firmely believe my own particular interpretation to be true but by consequent because that which is so interpreted by me according to lawfull rules I may judge to be true And he may allow me a power of discourse upon the propositions of Councils because he as others may hold Councils to be fallible in their discourse but not in the Conclusion And is not this very disputable Can I be as much assured of it as that Jesus is the Christ And may not I consent to the antient Fathers against the Fathers of Trent Trent Hist And did not some Divines in the Trent Council complain that some determinations crossed the mindes of the Antient Fathers And now if they will consider that the Arrians upheld an opinion which they know condemned in a lawfull Generall Council namely the first Nicene and also that the Arrians knew and that others ought to know that nothing in point of faith could authentickly be urged but out of Scripture they may think they have satisfaction enough to this Paragraph And may what Christ and his Apostles have expressed for the use of the Cup in the Holy Communion be extruded and what the Trent Council determined for the omission not doubted of Call they not this presumption Was ever any before these days so presumptuous Num. 20. Here my Adversary would maintain a supposition of his that they do only believe the Scriptures not we Ans This varies from the state of the present question and therefore when he goes from the question we need not follow him for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with us is this whether the Scriptures do plainly contain all things necessary to salvation yet as he said Non sum piger usque sequor His argument is this No body can believe this with Divine faith who doth not ground his assent to this truth upon Divine revelation but our Adversaries doe not ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation Ans Some of our Divines have been charged with too much charitie but we are now charged with a totall want of faith
an infallible assent no more than the first principles which are the object of intelligence And also therefore upon the premisses that which concludes the number might have been forborn Indeed you have brought your whole Religion to as pitifull a case as your Adversaries could wish it These braving words do not hurt a solid cause they are to be returned to the place from whence they came who hath brought Religion to so pitifull a case as the Pontifician who must have religion made accomodable to their pride and covetuousness No case of Religion so pitifull as uncertainty no such uncertainty of Religion as with them For if they ground their Religion upon the determination of Councils wherein onely Bishops have their vote and the Bishop of Rome his confirmation thereof no man can according to their principles be certain whether there be a true Pope or true Bishop as hath been said Moreover we can make use of intrinsecall arguments for the truth of Scripture to be the word of God as well as they We can make use of extrinsecall arguments better for we make use of the authority of the whole Church and do give it in this point as much reverence as is due thereunto But therefore till that which is here said for the setling of our faith be disproved and also till it be proved that we do not make use of these arguments towards our faith of Scripture because we do not pitch our finall resolution in them our ground of faith and of Religion is as good and sound as theirs yea in respect of our own subjective faith more Yea the Romanist might know that he hath been told that Estius doth differ from them upon this point and says that it is not necessary to faith to be begotten by the proposall of the Church in the third B. of senten 23 dist Yea also Stapleton in his Triplication against Whitaker saith p. 103. Ego igitur quicquid in haec causa Spiritui sancto tribuendum est plenissime assignavi c. I have most fully assigned what is to be attributed to the Holy Ghost in this cause asserting these two things both that by faith infused alone or by the testimony of the Holy Spirit alone all faith may be begotten when it pleaseth the Spirit of God to teach any extraordinarily immediately and also although ordinarily a thing is delivered by the testimony and authority of the Church yet no faith doth efficaciously follow without the gift of faith infused by God or without the internall testimony of the Spirit of God And again the same in the next page to the same purpose to clear himself of the suspition of giving no more to the Holy Ghost in this point than those who put the last reason of believing in the testimony of the Church he says disertly Ego enim c. For I have denied and do deny that the last reason of believing is to be put in the testimony of the Church not onely upon that head that that last proposition or resolution I believe the Church to be governed by the Holy Ghost is not had without the inward gift of faith or that he who believeth this believeth this by a gift of faith and not by humane faith or acquisit but especially upon that head that without any testification of the Church or notice of the Church or of the knowledge of that proposition That the Church is governed by the Spirit of God by the onely Magisterie of the Spirit of God one may believe all that is to be believed as the Prophets and Apostles being taught by the Spirit of God alone did believe many things for from hence it follows invincibly against Durandus and others since there can be but one formall reason of our faith and some believe without the testimony of the Church but none can believe without the testimony of the Spirit that the proper and formall reason of faith is not the voice of the Church but must be the testimony the Doctrine the Magistery of the Spirit of God So he And therefore there is lesse between Stapleton and me than betwixt my Adversary and me When all is done therefore we must come to this of the Father Cathedram habet in coelis qui corda docet in terris He hath his Chair in Heaven that teacheth hearts on earth and with the heart man believeth unto salvation Rom 10.10 Num. 21. Therefore in the following number he needed not to take notice of my differing from others of our own Church in this point let them agree with their own men Let Bannes and Stapleton agree with Durand or if they cannot be reconciled let them never hereafter make any difference amongst our selves a prejudice to the cause It is then no more reproach to me to differ from others than for some of them As for the three then whom he says I differ from Mr. Chillingworth Dr. Cowell and Mr. Hooker if they do not agree it it is no infallible argument against me even in the opinion of those three But also as to the first I say and my Adversaries might have known that he held not faith in the high notion of a Divine assent as they do But that a morall assurance was sufficient to it and sufficiently influxive into necessary practice And therefore having this opinion of faith he conceived no such need of an infallible ground hereof but took therefore a common principle for his motive hereof namely universal tradition Secondly if he takes not his grounds from my Adversaries what do they get by him For in his sixty sixth page he says that it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that the Gospell of St. Mathew is the word of God as that all that the Roman Church says is true Yea moreover the same p. 135. doth fairly shew that the Spirit of God may give assurance hereof which he says indeed is not rationall and discursive but supernaturall and infused An assurance it may be to himself but not to any other and again p. 211. that the Doctrine it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God Nec vox hominem sonat And is not then in his opinion the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If then he had raised faith to that height of a Divine assent as my Adversaries do it is very like he would have thought better of this assurance by the Spirit to be more ordinary since universal tradition if it hath any weight must rest in Scripture as it is the tradition of the universal Church which also he contradistinguisheth not onely to the Roman Church for place but to the present universall Church for time because we cannot prove the Church but by Scripture And as for the other two whose judgements he opposeth to my opinion I think they may receive convenient satisfaction by what is said to the former that they did not deny this assurance by the Spirit of God but
or Bull yet is there nothing in Hebrew for the Pope or his Bull whether then the perfidious Iews had honesty enough to deliver to us true Copies with true Points and Vowels Let their Bellarmin be judge in the former Chap. And yet moreover surely it is more probable that if the Points were first put by the Jews to the Consonants at the well of Tilerias yet they were not put by the perfidious Iews if he took it for the unbelieving Jews but by the believing Jews But yet my Adversary must needs object an expression of the most Reverend and Learned Arch-Bishop of Armah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the variety of Sections in the New Testament which Cressy also takes notice of But as to this upon supposition this concerns Christians Secundum rationem generalem and therefore one would think that we should not be bound to give an account of it as to an Heathen But so the Roman adversaries must order their attains that either there must be no Christian Faith but theirs onely Secondly those various Sections do they make any substantial change in the matter of sence or any contrariety to the Analogie of other Texts or not If not what can be the consequence from hence to the Church If so then how can the right reading be restored by the Church but through the Holy Ghost Well then in a Councel also or not if in a Councel how was the Church herein assured for the first three hundred years if without a Councel then why is infallibility tied to a Councel confirmed by a Pope as my Adversary sayes Thirdly we have no reason to depend upon the Roman Church for our security in such variety of readings since we have the more variety for them and in Manuscripts too as Dr. Iames asserts in his corruption of Fathers Councils and Scriptures so this comes to the Proverb Ovem lupo commisisti But fourthly they make a very ill Argument for themselves for if it be so uncertain which is not onely a true Translaâ—ion but also which is the true Original then how shall we be certain whether the Church be infallible since the An sit of this point must finally be determined by Scripture Fiftly we may be certainly as certain as they for we have the true Original from them or not if we have then we are as well as they if not any Original from them then how do we depend upon them for the Christian Faith as they If we had the Original Language from them and not the true then they deceived us by ignorance or worse And how should we be bound to believe in them then as our infallible Guides Sixtly That admirable Prelate did me the Honour himself to tell me upon an application to him that as for the variety of Sections they were observed by him to be of divers sorts and some inconsiderable and those of any moment not so many as there will be such danger to have them appear for they are intended to be Printed with the great Bible A touch we have also in this number of St. Matthews Gospel but this hath been agitated before But yet I cannot but observe how confidently these Romanists speak As for the new Testament St. Matthews Gospel was originally written in Hebrew that original is quite lost as if it were as sure as Gospel that it was written originally in Hebrew not preached onely but written in Hebrew and also that it was quite lost if lost we may or may we not think upon the rule in the Trent History he is to be suspected to be Author of a mischief who hath the interest in it So then we see nothing to the contrary but that yet the term infallibility is an unfortunate term for it loseth at all turnes Neither will they be able to get off clearely from all inextricable difficulties whatsoever they say of us N. 36. For first they suppose that they receive the vulgar translation upon as good authority as those who received the first Original copies And have they no better certainty for the first original copies Then they take a course to make Christianity ridiculous but this they will say for the honour of their Church Ridente turcâ nec dolente judaeo let Christianity crack so Rome stands So then by this principle of theirs if the vulgar Latin hath no certain credibility neither the original copies as if the original copies had came onely from Rome as the vulgar latin but for this latin Bible we are referred to the fourth Chap. Yet here he gives me a perstriction for objecting to them Isidor Clarius correcting of it in so many places If Isidor Clarius in any one title importing Faith and Manners differs from what we receive upon this infallible authority we have nothing to do with him And is this all But first he needs not make an if of it for if he will peruse but his Preface he shall find him to profess that he used a great deal of moderation lest offence should be taken and that it might not seem to be a new Translation and yet he saith Loca tamen ad octo millia annotata atque a nobis emendata sunt eight thousand places have been marked and mended by me And do none of them think you respect faith and manners Secondly Me thinks they are warping and coming off again to the former distinction that the Church could not be proposer of any damnative error importing Faith and Manners And this in Mr. Knot 's opinion as before spoiles all So then the Church might erre in this translation from the Originals but not in things importing Faith or Manners Thirdly Do they then think there was any fault at all in the Original Copies which the first Church received If so then there must be faults in Original Scripture If not now can they receive the vulgar Translation with an equal Faith of infalibility as they do the Original Copies Let Cardinal Bellarmin rebate somewhat that high Conceit of the Authentiknesse of the vulgar Latin which they know was but a product of a Council in his 26. de Author Concil the 12. ch Let them from thence consider whether the Scriptures are not to be preferred before the Decrees of Councels in many regards where he will tell them at the latter end of the Chap. that that of Gregory reverencing the four Councils General as the four Gospels is to be qualified illud sicut sonare similitudinem non aequalitatem that that As doth signifie similitude not equality indeed as Iustin Martyr saies of Plato That what he had said well in things Divine he doth mingle and confound with contrariety for fear of Mars hill lest he should suffer for it as Socrates so this the Cardinal doth seem to retract in the following words for fear of the seven hills as to equality of infalibility but yet in Iudiciis particularibus in judiciis morum quae non toti Ecclesiae sell
and none but this from the infallible Authority of Scripture hath no colour or shadow of Scripture or any thing like Scripture You must therefore ground your faith not upon Scripture but upon Reason Now the reason upon which you reject the Scripture is because you have a necessity of an external infallible Judge ever since the whole Canon was finished And for this onely reason without any Text you put the Scriptures sufficiency to expire and give up the ghost even after the finishing of the Canon Now if the reason for which you discard the Scriptures sufficiency be this because all points are not sufficiently cleared by Scripture then there can be no other prudent reason for which you in this one point may suppose the Scripture to be sufficient than this that that one point namely that we are to repair to the Church for all things necessary to salvation cannot be infallibly ascertain'd by the Church And therfore there is a greater necessity to have recourse to the sufficiency of Scripture undoubtedly infallible in all points which doth not causally bring forth their opinion of the Church Let me put them to it Doth the Scripture bring forth their opinion of the Church or doth it not If it doth not what hold have they for the Church And why do they make use of the Scripture to give Letters of Credence to the Church If it doth then there is an end of this Controversie Now the two inferences he would have me mark as clearly deduced from my principles are grounded but upon a supposition and therefore not to be marked but returned upon his concession First That all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture for no point more necessary than this without which there is no coming to the belief of any thing in the Church and yet this point is not plainly set down in Scripture nor that the Church is infallible obscurely Yea whereas he saies the Scripture sends us to the Church the Universal Church doth send us to the infallible Scripture for our necessary direction And this would give them satisfaction if it could serve their turn Moreover the second thing which he would have me mark halts upon the same unequal ground of supposing me to affirm what was but supposed Yet also we can send it home again and I can say that their former concession spoken of before doth overthrow that principle which is the ground-work of their faith For if there be a greater necessity to acknowledge the direction of Scripture in things necessary for as much as concerns this one point of the Church because this one point in particular is less clear of it self that grand principle of theirs which is or must be their principle evidently appeareth false namely that the Testimony of the Church is evidently seen by its own light which must be or else they are all undone And again how is it possible that there should be a greater necessity on the one side to have recourse to the Scripture for the infallible direction of the Church because it cannot be proved infallible by it self and yet on the other side this point of all other points hath this particular priviledge to be so manifest that it beareth witness of it self that it carrieth its own light with it So they may see what they get by taking a supposition for an Affirmation Tacitus's rule is good let nothing be thought prosperous which is not ingenuous Some other lines he hath in this Section to tell me what he hath done before and I have undone But as to a passage which I used out of Bellarmine to confirm a Dilemma which he tells me here that he hath broken before lest the contrary should have been better discerned upon the place he referred me to Bellarmin l. 1. c. 1. In fine as much as I can reade the hand I made use of Bellarmin against new Revelations beside Scripture and therefore we cannot believe the Church for it self because we cannot believe it but by a Revelation and no Revelation beside Scripture as he disputes against the Anabaptists For my answer he puts me off to the former place I think in the end And there is little to the business He saies indeed in the end That we do receive the Prophetical and Apostolical Books according to the minde of the Catholick Church as of old it is laid out in the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent to be the Word of God Et certam ac stabilem regulam fidei and the certain and stable rule of faith Now I hope these latter words are for us For if these words be taken in their just and full sense then the cause is ours If the Scripture be the certain and stable rule of faith then it must be clear otherwise how is it a certain rule and therefore no need of an infallible Judge And it must be sufficient alwaies otherwise how is it a stable rule and so it excludes Traditions But sure that is not the Chapter because my Adversary saies in that place where he speaketh of the Maccabees in particular which he doth not speak of in the first That Chapter where he particularly speaks of the Maccabees is the fifteenth but there is nothing to the purpose neither Thus he puts me to the hunt lest he should be at a loss Well but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is surely in the tenth Chapter where at the end he answers as my Adversary doth to S. Ieroms Authority against the Booke of Maccabees But this is besides the Butt For that which I looked for to be answered out of Bellarmin was the other point of no revelation beside Scripture It is true that I did in the same place name Bellarmine as relating S. Ieroms differing from my Adversarie about the Book of the Maccabees But why should I expect an answer to Bellarmine in this testimony when he produceth it onely that he might refute it that which I should have had satisfaction in out of Bellarmine was spoken by him out of his own judgement But again why did not my Adversary save me the labour of looking up and down for the passage by giving me the entire words of the Cardinal there I might have thought my Adversary would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he proves rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he thought it was not requisite that I should finde the place because there are some adjacent words which I can improve He saies Ierome was of that opinion quia nondum Generale Concilium de his libris aliquid statuerat excepto Libro Judith quem etiam Hieronymus postea recepit Mark the words Because the General Council had not yet determined any thing of those Books except the Book of Iudith which also afterwards S. Ierome received So then it seems a General Council had before taken these Books into consideration namely that of Toby and Iudith and of the Maccabees and determined nothing but
have no more certainty then of tradition for their faith they have no faith of proper name 5. We are upon the surer ground to trust upon the Scripture because the Church must be subordinate to it then they because they trust to the Church for the truth of Scripture For if this were right then the Church might have that priviledge which St. Paul could not claim to himself namely to be mistress of our faith whereas St. Paul denies it 2. Ep. Cor. 1.24 Not as Masters of your Faith but helpers of your joy And we have Estius also of our opinion as before that all faith hath not the authority of the Church for the formal reason thereof this is enough against his first shift the second shift is this Gospel might possibly at the first be written in Greek and here he asks me whether possibilities grounded upon conjectures be sufficient to ground an infallible assent We answer no but exceptions of a possibility of error are sufficient to contradict infallibility They say they have an infallible faith we say there is a possibility of error herein and this is enough for us against them And then 2. This weapon we use against you Possibilities grounded upon conjectures are not sufficient to ground an infallible assent This it seems is their own position now they have nothing but possibilities for them therefore they have no infallible assent This assumption hath been proved before upon their own principles We have nothing but possibilities grounded upon conjectures that they have a right Pope legitimate in his Baptisme and priesthood and so of other Priests there might be want of due matter due form due intention which with them make the act null But then he compares the inevidence of St. Matthews Gospel to be the uncorrupted word of God with the evidence of St. Lukes Gospel to be such by its own light and would have me think as much reason to believe the inevidence of the latter as I doe of the former but 1. he doth not rightly to compare the evidence of St. Lukes Gospel with the inevidence of St. Matthew's as he would have me graunt As if because I supposed an inevidence which was the original I also graunted an inevidence of the Gospel and yet faith doth not exclude a negative inevidence there may be certitude of assent without evidence of the object therefore we say 2. We are rather assured of the language by the Scripture then of the Scripture by the language otherwise the ignorant people could have no faith of Scripture 3. We can give upon our own principles as much credit to the Church as to the point of the originall language as the Church can require or they prove 4. How did the Church first accept it to be the word of God whether the Greek was the originall or not By the internall testimonie of the spirit it must be said For if it should be said we receive now by tradition of former ages this is forecluded because we ask the question how the first Church accepted it if not by the spirit of God internally assuring them then let them tell us how they came to the faith thereof not opinion if so then why may we not receive it so too And moreover it doth not follow that if the Gospel of St. Matthew were originally greek therefore we should see it to be so as well as St. Luke A posse ad esse non valet Multa videntur quae non sunt multa sunt quae non videntur Many things seem which are not many things are which are not seen Every irradiated understanding of theirs doth not see all points which belong to their Church Some do see the Monarchie of the Church to be as Bellarmin some do not see the Monarchy of the Church as Spalatensis notes Again how came it to pass that the former Churches did not see the Apocryphal books to be Gods true and uncorrupted word and yet some Church of later times hath seen them such answers of mine would be repetitions were they not answers to his repetitions Nextly he comes to my argument which I did not make much of but he less that the Gospel of St. Matt. was written in Greek because the Greek copie doth interpret the word Immanuel which if it were written in Hebrew needed not any interpretation But my Adversary might have added if he had pleased that which followes in my Paper since the letters of the word put together without any variation do make that signification And this we called not a demonstration nor a probability but rather a possibility by that reason And therefore unless he did make all things invincible by infallibility he needed not to have called it a pittiful weak conjecture Well but what said he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He answers then it is manifest that translations of Scripture usually tell us the Hebrew word first and then the translation of it so Gen. Bi. 48. Galaad id est tumulus testis Not to take any notice of the Scribe he puts here that in the way of interpretation which is there delivered in way of a cause and reason of the terme Ver. 47. but Iacob called it Galeed then 48. for Laban said this heap is witness between me and thee this day therefore he called the name of it Galeed And before the name which Laban gave it in Chaldee Segar Sahudatha is not there interpreted although there be a little difference between that and the name which Iacob gave it in Hebrew for Galeed signifies the heap of witnes the other heap his witnes Therefore whereas he would make Galaad id est tumulus testis to be in termes Scripture it is not so No m re is that of Exodus 12. Phasâ— id est transitus It is not said so there but there is a reason given why they should â—at it in haste for it is the Lords Passeover ver 11. the reason is given before which is contrary to what he saies that it is usual to put the Hebrew words first and then the translation of it but here is the reason before and no formal interpretation Ratio nominis I hope is different from an interpretation Another instance and indeed in order before the last is Gen. 35.18 Benoni i.e. filius doloris mei Benjamin id filius dextrae But here also he presumptuously supposeth his vulgar latin to be Scripture which is to suppose that which is not to be supposed and indeed a sophism in begging that which is in question none of all languages which the great Bible set out with us hath doth put in these words in form of an exposition The Syriaâ—k and the Arabick and the Greek doe express the matter of the interpretation but then they leave out the name Benoni but all keep Benjamin without any interpretation Another instance of his is Exod. 16.15 31. Manna quod sign ficat quid est hoc And here again he takes the vulgar Latin for
humane judicatories have their use without infalliblity he toucheth not My fourth he toucheth in the next paragr Par. 57. In this number he seems if I may think so to be a litle hooked and with more line to be more snarled There must stick upon the Church Roman a censure either of fallibility or unfaithfulness Thus it is they say the Scripture is not our guide sufficiently because it doth not decide controversies we return it to them that upon the same account the Church Roman is not because it doth not decide whatsoever is necessary to be believed by a full Catholique in their sense And for instance whether the Pope hath a temporal power or not if temporal whether directly as the Canonists or propter bonum spirituale as others then whether the Pope be superiour to a Council in things Ecclesiastical To these he gives me no positive account and yet are these points Cardines mundi ecclesiae the main points upon which the Church and world with them must turne Do they tell us that it is a necessary point know whether the king be head of the Church and is it not as necessary for them to know whether the Pope be head of the Church But we must consider his apology Our doctrine is that the Church can decide any point formerly revealed when any necessity shall require it or the declaration of this point concerne salvation Ans what worke would some adversary have made him for such a return The charge against Scripture was that it cannot end all necessary controversies I recriminate neither doth their Church They reply the Church can I reioyn first here they vary I said their Church they say the Church as if they would not own the Church of Rome in its catholickness 2. They say it can But if it can and will not I am yet to seek for my trust and as St. Ierom said to the Pelagians about the possibility of the law how shall we think that possible which was never done if it cannot how is it infallible in all points if it will not how is it faithfull if it can let it do so and then let them object our differences to us and the inability of Scripture to end them 3. He saies the Church can decide any point formerly revealed what meanes he by this if formerly revealed then what need of a judge for it and then the most they can do is to declare and so may another Church and that not necessary neither if it were formerly revealed Well then Are these points revealed or not if they be not revealed then by their own confession they cannot decide them And if they be formerly revealed what need to be decided but but 4. When any necessity shall require c. But let me know why when such a thing is proposed by the Church it is a fundamental and a necessary point to be believed and yet somewhat is necessary to be believed and yet not decided by the Church As for instance it is necessary to be believed that the Pope is head of the Church for so Bellarmin defines a Christian with subjection to the Pope as head of the Church in his Catechism And yet it seemes this is not decided by the Church because then it is decided whether he be supreme in Ecclesiasticals So then the definition of the Church cannot be the adaequate reason of our faith because somewhat is necessary to be believed which is not decided and yet again if somewhat be necessary to be believed then by my adversaries confession it ought to be declared because it doth concern our salvation And since the Church is to act not ex arbitrio but ex officio how can it else clear it self of the bloud of all men as St. Paul doth Acts 20.27 when it doth not declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole counsel of God And if they take counsel here in their sense we can make use of it to them thus that if he declared all counsels then much more necessary doctrine because counsels according to them are not simply necessary but yet it cannot be taken in their sense because he dischargeth himselfe hereby of the bloud of all men and therefore must it be meant of what was necessary to their salvation simply as counsels they say are not So then he thinks it the best way to pitch upon the negative and to say Salvation hath very securely been had without the decision of these points you speak of If Circumstances happen that salvation cannot be had without their decision they will then be decided Ans first then let there be a defalcation and discounting of one point from the number of those which are accounted by them to us necessary which the Scripture hath not decided and that is whether the King be head of the Church for surely there is as much reason of necessity to salvation for them to know whether the Pope be head of the Church as for us to know whether the King be head and more too since infallibility is annexed to their head 2. If Salvation may be had without an assurance in those points then how shall we be bound to the Trent Council in beliefe of the Roman Church to be the Apostolick Church without which no salvation when yet we need not know who is supreme in that Church Take it in this forme subjection to the universal Church is necessary to salvation the Roman Church is not universal unles he be head therefore unles he be head of the Church subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation And then Conclamatum est And if Circumstances according to him can bring these points under a necessity of decision then it seems they are but indifferent ex naturâ rei for circumstances are only considerable in case of indifferency And then by the virtue of the former discourse it is indifferent to salvation whether we be subject to the Roman Church or not And so might we end the business But he goes on if you acknowledge a reall necessity to be at all times of the infallible knowledge of these points Ans He doth not take notice that I dispute with him upon his own principles by which he he is bound to shew that the Church hath defined these points since he saies the Scripture hath not decided all necessary points but hath referred us to the Church for their decision Now then since these points are not necessary to us but to them who have that opinion of the Roman Church it belongs to them to shew the Church's decision of these points And therefore if they believe all Scripture and therefore these if they be determined there this will not serve them though it is enough for us because what the Scripture doth not clearly define they say the Church by Scripture is deputed to And if the Church hath not done it though they know the way to Rome they do not know the way to
it seems to stand his ground which Bellarmin and Peron and the Rhemists stand upon but also because the promise is made to the Catholique Church Thus then their Church is not the Catholique Church the promise is made to the Catholique Church therefore not to them The Roman Church may be a nest of errours idolatrous superstitious wickedly assuming the authority of an infallible Tribunal without sufficient authority though the Catholique Church be not such nor doth assume such authority as the errours of a particular Church are not charged duly upon the universal Church so the privileges of the universal Church are not infeoffed upon a particular Well but now we will do as he bids us and be patient till he shew in the next chapter how this concernes the Roman Church But shall I have my five answers answered then for he saies here that I begin to say nothing against him untill I begin to say sixthly So then I must be thought to say nothing against him because he hath nothing to say to what I said in those five answers The sixth answer then he takes notice of and it came in thus he had asserted the Church secure from all damnative errour I took upon advantage this as taking those words distinctively that though it was not free from all errour yet from errour damnative And I gave him good reason why he should take those words so because otherwise they are not like to be the Church unto which that priviledge is granted Upon this I argued against their infallibility according to the opinion also of Mr. Knot Therefore he now waves this debate and saies he argued ad hominem but we will hunt him out of this refuge too They cannot argue thus out of our principles because we say this of the universal Church not of a particular Church No Church of one denomination is secure from damnative errour therefore cannot they ultimately improve what we grant to the universal Church for their use But 2. He could not yet from hence conclude that no body shall be damned for following the guidance of the Church For not to say again that this is not appliable to the Roman Church which is not the Catholique Church yet may we not follow the universal Church absolutely because it is not in all points infallible For so consequently we might be bound to follow errour Yea 3. Since according to our principles it is not exempted from all errour according to Mr. Knot 's principles it cannot be our guide Yea 4. To Follow the Church in an errour may be damnative though the errour may not be damnative because another not knowing it to be an error may hold it without damnation but if I knew it to be an error yet follow it I incurre damnation because I resist a known truth And 5. Since the universal Church cannot shew its charter of being exempted from all errour it is not necessary for her alwaies to have such a visible existence as is necessary to afford a guidance So then whereas he askes me by what Logique do you inferre that because the Church is secured from all damnative errour therefore according to my doctrine she is not secured from other errours I answer it is very true simpliciter loquendo that the affirmation of one species doth not allwaies include a negation of the other namely when that which is affirmed is not a constitutive difference thereof But considering his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving him good reason why he should mean them so I could not be blamed for guessing that he meant them so Yea the words which he hath used in this chapter for expressing the priviledge of the Church are yet so put togeher that they may seem suspiciously to bear such a construction Neither does he here positively deny as would become his confidence this distinction To put it then to an issue I shall put them to their choice how those words shall be understood whether distinctively or by way of epithet If distinctively then my consequences stand good upon that ground If not then have they such a task upon them which all the Roman wit and industry will never throughly performe for first then must they say that either all errour is damnative which indeed should have been proved upon former urging as much reason for all sins to be mortal as all errours to be damnative and more too since sin hath the guilt of the will simple errour hath not or else there may be errours not damnative which makes for us against the necessity of an infallible judge as to all points or that the Church cannot erre at all And then here will be a double labour to prove and indeed a double errour to say First that it hath not erred 2. that it cannot erre If the latter then to be sure the former indeed but if the fonmer then not presently the latter Yea if they will then stand to it that the Church is secure from all errour whatsoever then their Church is not the Church And the consequence is good and strong for that Church can erre because it hath erred in the Latin Bible in the supernumerary Canon of Scripture in the point of Transubstantiation in Communion under one kind In their Counsails as hath been shewed already and in the point of merit Ex condigno if the 30. Canon of the 6. Sess of the Trent Council be compared with Rom. 8.18 The Canon of the Council speaks an Anathema to him that shall say that the good works of a justified man do not vere mareri truly merit increase of grace consecution of eternal life if they shall die in grace and also increase of glory The Canon of the Scripture saith I account that the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory wich shall be revealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not weigh with Now whether Scripture be our rule of faith or not this must be an errour since they acknowledge the Scripture to be true and infallible For whatsoever is contradictory to truth is false this is contradictory to Scripture which is true In this they have erred from the Latin Fathers in the sence of the word from the Greek Fathers in the matter and from the Scripture which is our rule and was the rule of the Church until a Church rose up which would not be ruled And let them take notice too that sufferings are the best part of our obedience and if they are not worthy how should good actions merit More errours of their Church might be named but one errour with them is enough to contradict infallibility and to discharge us of following their Church He saies then I quarrel with one of the Cardinal vertues even Prudence herself Ans I think I may quarrel with one of the Cardinal vertues Prudence is one of the Cardinal vertues in Morality and one of the Cardinal vertues in Divinity Prudence is the politique
vertue and so is their Religion a politique Religion And if a man may proceed prudently in the choice of his Religion then he doth not beleive first and then understand as yet the vulgar Latin reads that text but we must understand first and then beleive Prudence is a Moderatress of actions not a mistress of Faith And how doth Prudence consist with implicite Faith which believes what it doth not know Prudence is a vertue of reason which is contradistinguished to Faith And if we may proceed prudently in the chusing of our Religion then we may well exercise the judgment of discretion in matters of Faith and therefore are not simply bound to take upon trust whatsoever their Church obtrudes He goes on Then you conclude all the force my former Argument hath it hath from Scripture Is not my Argument the better for this Yes If the Argument were grounded in Scripture it were better upon that ground than upon any other but this Argument is not good because it is not taken from Scripture Scripture is the best Argument in Thesi but in Hypothesi it is not well applied We like it well that he goes about to prove the Church by Scripture which is the highest principle But let them not give us such a sense of Scripture which belongs not to their cause unless against it In the next number which he nameth the fourth but then it seems the third is lost by the way he saith I stumble again at the senses of damnable errours Ans No N. 4. For I discourse of it by a Dilemma or disjunctive which will take in either sense but he is not willing to move this stone again therefore he stumbles at it Another Text he builds upon St. Matthew 18.17 N. 5. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a publican or a Heathen Upon this he â—â—mes an argument God Commandeth us to hear the Church and obey her but no kinde of errour little or great can be incurred by following Gods command Ans I am glad he hath any such forme of discourse which would more clearly and handsomely shorten the debate we therefore answer to it passing by all discepiation about the sense of the Church there or the quality of the cause We say then if he understands the major so as that God absolutely universally commandeth us to heare and obey the Church then the conclusion were good and we could not erre in following the Church But so the minor is denied God hath not absolutely and universaly commanded us so to heare and obey the Church If he understands the major specificatively and in things lawfull then we can grant the minor but then the conclusion will not be universall will be peccant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so not conclude contradictorily to us who do not dispute here against all obedience to the Church negatively as if we would have none but against all obedience affirmatively as being not bound in faith to all commands And therefore need he not come in with a reliefe to succour his discourse by saying from me it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour though it be not damnable This true but not well applied to me unles he can prove Gods command for absolute obedience in whatsoever the Church proposeth But as this is true so it is pertinent for me against him that though the universal Church cannot erre in points necessary where errour would be damnative yet could we not be bound universally to follow upon that account because no man can be bound to assent to an errour though not damnative Neither doth it follow from the Text therfore meerely and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held a publican or a Heathen Unles he understands by not hearing not submitting if he doth not understand it so it doth not follow if he does understand it so this is not to his purpose because though we may be bound to submit to the Church yet we may not be bound to believe the Church these are two things which he should have distinguished Therefore cannot he prove from hence that the Church cannot erre He is to be accounted an Heathen or publican upon not submiting to the Church in regard of authority not upon not assenting because of infallibility And therefore though we be all bound simply to avoid excommunication yet if the case were put that we must assent to an errour or else be excommunicated we take the censure and leave the errour and if they will not have proviso with a clave non errante for the censures of the Church then what condition was Pope Honorius in who was excommunicated as before If God binds against errour and the Church as we suppose bind to it we can say presently that the Church cannot absolve without God but God can absolve without the Church And this answereth the next verse in the Gospell as he produceth it But the former Answer he would take off in the next words by an argument To swerve from Gods word is to erre But this Text proveth that the the Church cannot erre Ans The major is indeed true but the Text doth not prove the minor therefore it is false because he saith the text proveth it And indeed if she could the meerely not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to Gods judgment a publican and heathen Ans This is denied Refractorines exposeth thereunto without acknowledgment of infallibility And yet am I still of this opinion that that Text concernes not matters of faith but of trespass betwen Brother and Brother and therefore that Text is not to his purpose This and more he saith nothing to here But yet I followed him and said that a man is not bound to believe the censure is just unles it apeare to be so To this he saies this last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine For the unanimous opinion of Learned men is that a man is bound to hold his superiours censure or command to be just unles the contrary appeares evident Ans first then this determination of the case by Learned men supposeth that a thing may appear evident against the superiours censure or command So that by consequence they have the unanimous opinion of Leanred men against them in two points first that a thing may be evident without the proposal of the Church for it may be evident against it 2. Then that the Church may make an injust censure or command But for his opinion he nameth three Learned men Chillingworth Hooker Laud. So he as to the first Mr. Chillingworth he hath nothing for him in his 108 nu For he maketh use of this rule In cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superiour nor cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees But how is this applied to our case Indeed it was his best course not to apply it Let
be answered when it is not At the end of this Section he saith You highly wrong St. Athanasius to say he did not hear the Church Ans I should be very loath to be truely guilty of this and surely if he grants that the Church may be mistaken in the fact he may be mistaken in this Censure which he should have proceeded in secundum allegata et probata I said this St. Athanasius did differ from the rest of the Church when the whole world did groan under Arrianisme So he did not hear the Church as differing in opinion though it is not said that he did not hear the Church as disobeying the Censure Here he supposeth that upon the virtue of former Principles he may conclude of the Church No She cannot erre in an errour not damnable No Let that which was formerly granted be compared with this and we shall conclude the contrary To excommunicate a person who is not to be excommunicated is to erre The Church may excommunicate a person not to be excommunicated Therefore the minor is as good as confessed by him because the Church may be mistaken in the fact Nay he saith it in terms and so there may be an errour in the mistake of the fact He proceeds Hence that common Doctrine of Antiquity that it is not possible to have a just cause of separating from the Church Ans Besides the nullity of this upon the want of a true ground as before he doth misreport the axiom or else he must distinguish of Separating There is no just cause of Schism for the proposition hath in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because if there be a just cause it is not Schism but though every Schism is a Separation every Separation is not Schism Take then separation in specie for Schism so it may be true but a Separation from a Church imposing errours in Faith and things unlawful in practice is not without a just cause and therefore is it not Schism It is not without a just cause by his former confession just now in those words So men should be bound to assent unto an errour which is impossible And again this is to be understood of Separating from the Catholique Church or from a particular Church for that order wherein it agrees with the Catholique But this is not our case for the Roman is but a particular Church and we separated upon Catholique Principles that so we might hold union with the Catholique Church And then again there is a difference betwixt a national reformation and a private Separation And therefore yet the distinction is not disabled namely of separating from the errours and not from the Church unless it were better proved that the Church is secured from all errour which that text doth not prove Then goes he on to take away somewhat I said to the text in my first and fifth answer to it He claps them together and would make me to conclude thus this maketh nothing for the Authority of the universal Church Ans Let them remember again for Aquinas tells us that we cannot forget natural Principles that the whole is greater than the part I allow much to a particular Church in correspondence with the Universal therefore little to their Church And if I do reply that this text belongs also to particular Churches then this doth redound to the honour of the Universal Church And that this doth belong to particular Prelats to excommunicate he himself doth confess in this Section Therefore must he conclude that I conclude for the Universal Church And yet moreover in all this long gloss upon the text how little have we had of that upon which all in this discourse turns namely whether Authority of excommunication be it in the Universal or a particular Church respects not formally the contempt not the non-assent Let them speak less or more to the purpose And yet again he would drive it on in a loose way that we have a command from God to hear the Church absolutely and universally To this purpose he saies Those who disobey the judges disobey the Common-wealth so generally speaking those who disobey the Prelats of the particular Church disobey the universal Church commanding her to proceed according to her Decrees Canons and definitions Ans Here is not much and for them less A Common-wealth is a term ambiguous and may be taken strictly or largely strictly in the form largely as including head and members And in this large sense may be considered with more respect to the Body or to the Head in confuso or in capite If he takes it in the strict sence it is not to any purpose because there is a different reason of laws in the Common-wealth and in the Church For in a Common-wealth so Laws proceed from them as the efficient thereof but in the Church truths and duties do come from God and therefore in such cases the disobedience reflects upon God Now the case we dispute upon is in necessary truths and duties If he understand a Common-wealth largely and then with more particular repute to the people the disobedience to the judges doth not reflect upon them unless objectively and consequently because though they are not their Judges by way of Authority yet they are their Judges in way of End for their good If it be taken with more relation to the head whose judges they are by authoritative commission it is true that the disobedience to the Judge doth redound upon him but here is difference betwixt them for particular Prelats do not depend upon the universal Church as Judges do upon the Head of a Common-wealth because Bishops have their Authority by divine right which was contended for hotly in the Trent Council and had proceeded affirmatively had not the Roman Court bandied against it And then also the matter of disobedience we speak of is from God not the universal Church but the matter of Civil disobedience to the Judge is from the Head And then again we do not speak of disobedience positive which my Adversary doth instance in but in obedience which is negative And then again particular Prelats are not so bound in things of particular order as the people are bound to the Laws of a particular Nation And also then this will redound to the Adversaries prejudice for the particular Prelats of their Church have not proceeded according to the Canons Decrees and definitions of the universal Church as hath been shewed And also this is against them because then my Adversary confesseth that this text under debate is competible fairly to particular Churches and therefore they have no reason to appropriate it to themselves And so upon the whole matter we can say as much in a due respect to the Catholique Church as they do here and yet hold our own So then he doth not contradict here And yet again he is importunate to prove that disobedience to the Church at last redounds to Christ and God out of the 16.
of a Supreme Prelat or of a Council And that particular Prelats are here meant we need not prove to the Pontificians who take too much notice that there Epistles were written but upon particular occasions and for particular times And therefore this being written to the Hebrews should not by that account concern us Yea if it were written with an intention for Prelats in a Council it must be written for them per saltum not for the present times but for above 300. years after 2. This relates to those who did watch for their Souls which being put per se is to be understood of those that teach the Word and so it corresponds to the 7. ver where those that are set over them are specified by teaching the Word The obedience then there injoyned respects those as teaching the the Word not formally as exercising authority of Jurisdiction And therefore that Text is not here well applied Thus far the power of the Supreme Prelat is extended by the consent of the whole Church Ans We see then their own differences to be such as that they may be ashamed to upbraid us with our differences and we not ashamed to be upbraided Can my Adversaries exactly point out the maximum quod sic of the power of the Supreme Prelat of the universal Church Must he that is by them acknowledged to be the Pillar of the Church have his Pillars set him beyond which he must not budge Tell it not to the Canonists and the Courtiers of Rome As Cyril of Jerusalem notes that the Sea where it stints in the flote makes in a similitude a Line which God hath set it that it should not pass So have my Adversaries set a Line to the Roman Sea hitherto it may go by the consent of the whole Church So then the members may appoint the Head what operations and how far it shall perform and the Head shall not be onely influxive upon them but they rather upon it This opinion will make Popes shie of Councils if he hath his power extended by their consent For they do not mean the consent of the whole Church to be of the confusaneous multitude do they if they do then the Church in this sense shall be the first subject of Ecclesiastical power Yea If they also mean it of the Church in a Council how is the Pope successor of St. Peter when the Pope must be limited by the Church St. Peter as they say was Prince of the Apostles immediately from Christ And surely according to this reckning Bellarmins distinction will come to naught who saies the power of Kings is not by divine right but by the consent of the people but the Popes power is for it comes not from the Church but Christ as in his 3. b. de verb. Dei cap. 9. And then he is not the Rock and foundation of the Church but the Church of him and so the spiritual Monarchy must be slighted How far is this from that Italian who presented a book to Paulus the fifth with this inscription PaULo V to Vice Deo out of which one picked the number of the beast 666. But therefore my Adversary goes at the Spanish rate very suspensively in omnem eventum as being disposed to a pause betwixt the affirmative and the negative and he saith Now though the Supreme Head of the Church be as infallible as St. Peter was and so on in a long speech Well but doth this affirm or is it a meer supposition which doth ponere nihil He hath carried the Pope up to the clouds and there he staies but let them come out of the clouds and tell us plainly whether we must take a cloud for Iuno Such irresolution doth not become infallibility He seems to make him as infallible as St. Peter because he should be Supreme Head of the Church and yet St. Peter was not Supreme Head of the Church if the rest of the Apostles be included in the term Church as members and yet he must not be as infallible as St. Peter because cases of difficulty must be referred to the Council It follows yet if he seeth this newly vented doctrine fit to be declared heresie if it be so or to be imbraced if it be fitting and proposed to all Christendome then is the true time of calling a General Council and not to let the people contend by allegations of Scripture We are now step by step soberly mounted to the Soveraign Authority of the Church in a Representative Ans 1. What needs all this trouble if he be as infallible as St. Peter and why do they say that St. Paul went to St. Peter to confirm his Doctrine by St. Peters Authority should there not have been a Council called then as well According to them St. Peters infallibility confirmed St. Pauls Doctrine the Pope according to them is Successour of St. Peter in his infallibility to all effects and purposes as Ruler of the Church therefore he may do it and frustra fit per plures also 2. Note we here that it is to be the true time of calling a Council upon debate of a point heretical which respects Articles of Faith but we have been often told by our Adversaries that we are to have an infallible Judge to decide all controversies emergent Now if there be not a Council to be called but for decision of Articles of Faith as to their's we have lesse need since he that is an Heretique is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks And therefore he needed not to foreclude the peoples contending in allegations of Scriptures for surely Scripture may be alleaged without contention and if it happens sapiens non curat de accidentalibus And so also the Council may contend in allegation of Scripture and therefore they should not alleage Scripture Yea also we may soberly contend that in articles of Faith there needs not be any other contention since they are more plainly delivered in Scripture than that we must stay for a General Council to be established in the belief of them Blessed be God we are better provided for in articles of Faith than to stand in such necessity of a General Council which when such will be and how we shall know it is such according to them we must know by another General Council and that by another and so in infinitum since we know nothing infallibly but by the infallible authority of the Church and that in a General Council We will then take that for our Law whereby the Council must Judge since the matters are plain which are great and about other things small the Judges will not meet Lex non curat de minimis Let Hiero conclude for himself from hence forward whatsoever Archimedes saith it must be believed But it seems it is a book case and example we have hereof by the practice of the Apostles in the 15. of the Acts Though the Apostles were all infallible in their doctrine yet they could not
thus whatsoever requires infallible assent must have an infallible Authority Diverss points not proposed clearly in Scripture the Church requires an infallible assent to therefore she must have infallible Authority we answer granting the major which yet they have no reason to urge unless they had more firm Principles that the assumption may be true de facto but not de jure And then again It is yet denied that ever the Church Universal did ever exact this As to the right hereof she must prove her infallibility and Authority too hereunto as to the fact it must be proved by our Adversaries Therefore since I am respondent I may conclude thus Things necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture those points are not plainly set down in Scripture saies he therefore I conclude they are not necessary Here he makes a return to my Argument against him N. 18. that if that must be Judge which can hear him and me and be heard by him and me then Tradition is thus excluded from being the Judge here he distinguisheth It is the Church who proposeth these Traditions and not the Traditions which are our judge Ans This is easily taken away for according to their Principles Tradition must be Judge of the Church If their former Argument be good that we must not ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Scripture because we do not know what is Scripture but by the Church so also we cannot ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Church because we cannot tell which is the Church but by Tradition And if it be Judge of the Scripture in the Canon of it as they must say then surely it may be Judge of the Church because as before by the Fathers opinion the Church must be proved by Scripture Again by Tradition was the Faith of Christian Doctrine bred in the minds of the Barbarian Nations as we have it said before by my Adversary therefore Tradition must be the infallible Judge or else they had not the same Faith which the Roman contends for by an infallible Judge or if they had then there are more infallible Judges or Faith may be had without an infallible Judge or Traditions and the Church are all one and then the distinction is none And yet also this answer of his I did provide for before in these words but you say the Church doth determine hereby by Tradition then may it determin by Scripture more securely and more universally And to this he replies nothing but holds the conclusion From hence he skips to answer me about that which I opposed to his Judge exclusively to any other I urged that of St. Paul that an heretick is condemned by himself namely as I discoursed by the Law of God within him by vertue of Conscience which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemnation of errour in us c. To this he saies he is not an heretick but an infidel who is told by his own Conscience that he gain-saith the Scripture Ans First Then the Scriptures are so clearly the Word of God that an Infidel may be told thereof by his own Conscience If not so then his words have no sense If so then may we see the Scripture to be the Word of God by its own light as the Heathens did the Law of nature and then he contradicts his own former discourse Secondly Saint Paul speaks not of an Infidel but in terminis terminantibus of an heretick who supposeth the Scriptures to be the Word of God though by consequence he denies it in Hypothesie as to the point of heresie So that the Text cannot be so put off And though every Christian is readier to die than to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture yet the heretick who supposeth the Scripture in Thesi and in general may yet deny it in the application against him and for this he is to be rejected because he goeth against his own Principles of Scripture which do condemn his heresie in his own conscience though outwardly he opposeth And he helps his cause no better with another shift When St. Paul wrote those words the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written and until the whole Canon was written your own Doctors grant the Church to have been the infallible judge of controversies Ans If he takes whole so as to be understood in order to the Canon I grant that the whole Canon was not then written but if he takes it in opposition to a sufficient direction by what was then written I deny it there was then as much written as was simply necessary to Salvation for how could St. Paul otherwise say to Tim. That the Scriptures then were able to make him wise unto Salvation thus I distinguish of the former part but then 2. the latter I doe deny that our awn Doctours do say that the Church was the infallible Judge of controversies until the whole Canon of the Scriptures was written for then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Pharises had been infallible No the word of God was infallible when it was not written but not the Church Therefore he mistakes the purport of finishing the Canon which was not ever held by us to cease the infallibility of the Church but to accomplish the matter of Scripture and so it doth exclude verbum non Scriptum Infallibility of the Church was never held but the Canon of Scripture was allwaies sufficient providing allwaies that the Church in this consideration be meant contradistinctly to the writers of Scripture Neither needs he to wonder at my saying that the Church then was not sufficiently formed thereunto namely to a definition of what was to be held therein To this he saies the Church was formed before St Pauls conversion and before his conversion the number of Desciples was multiplied Ans The terme Church is very ambiguous He takes it here of the Church vertual or of the Church representative or of the Church diffusive The Church vertual which the Iesuits say is the Pope was not yet formed The Church Representative as they say in a Council confirmed by the Pope was not yet formed There was no council General till after three hundred yeares nor Pope so soon in their sense A Church diffusive there was but this serves not his turn for we must speake of such a Church formed so that the heretique should be condemned for contradicting the definition of the Church Now the definition of the Church according to my Adversary is by the Church Representative and this was not then formed Then again to take his own words either the Church was not then formed most compleatly with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith or it was Let them now say which they will Then no necessity of Pope and Council yea no necessity of Pope or Council If it was not compleatly formed then my former answer obtains And besides if
he had been condemned by himself because by the Church then had he been condemned by himself extrinsecally to himself or he and the Church must have been all one therefore whether he had the doctrine from the Church or immediately from any one of the Apostles yet was he condemned by that doctrin as being impressed upon his own Conscience So that I have as much as I can desire by this discourse namely that is possible for us to be Judged and condemned within our selves of Heresie without an externall Judge which then was not fully and exactly I am sure constituted according to the mind of our Adversaries although in purity of doctrine the Church was better then then ever she was since that time N. 19 In this he begins more solemnly to tell us what he means by the name of the Church and wherein consists the power of infallibility in a Decree or definition of the Church And first he tels us who are to be excluded from a decisive voice Children and women and laymen and inferiour Clergy thus he proceeds first by exclusions as they do in the choise of a Pope And then he goes on by way of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so he makes the subject of the power of this Decree to be the prime pastours Praelats of the Church assembled together in a lawfull General Council with their Chief Pastour and Head the Bishop of Rome This the progress of this Paragraph Well but our question is of the praedicate whether the Church thus constituted is infallible in its Decrees and therefore since he here hath no argument he hath bound us not to have an answer And yet may we note that if he means the formation of a Church to be thus we can more clearely contradict him in what he said formerly that the Church was formed before St. Pauls conversion It was not so formed And yet 2. We may as well dispute here the subject of the question whether the Church thus formed is infallible in its decrees as he disputes the an sit of Scripture when we were upon the praedicate whether the Scripture be sufficient to Salvation And surely I may do this legally because I am a respondent and I may do it also more boldly because I know they cannot make good the praedicate that this Church is thus formed infallible in its Decres And as to his exclusions then we could confront him with the opinion of Alphonsus de Castro who would have had a chapter against him for his exclusions since he maks the acceptation of the diffused Church to be necessary to inerrability And as to the Chief Pastour and Head he speakes it cum privilegio surely as if not only what the Pope said was not to be questioned but also what is said of him They will never prove that there ever was to be any such Chief Pastour and Head of the Church universal dejure nor can they ever prove that there was de facto any one so called till Boniface the third who had the Title granted him by Phocas But non fuit sic ab initio And the rule is good Errores ad sua principia reducere est refellere And therefore either the Church was not allwaies infallible or was infallible without Councils because for above three hundred yeares was no General Council and therefore why doth he urge the necessity of Councils unto infallibility And when there was Councils afterwards till Trent Council inclusively either the Councils were fallible with a Pope or might be infallible without him because till Boniface the third there was no such Pope as Head or Head as Pope And therefore why do they urge the necessity of a Pope for their infallibility This he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in before and now should have been proved since he knew that this is not granted on both sides as the Scripture is to be the Word of God And he that is a seeker of his religion will never find the Pope to be in the Church as a King in his kingdome who is no part of the representative properly And if he would have the Pope no more than part of the Representative he should be no more Head of the Church than as a Speaker in an Assembly And how should he be then the Church virtual as the high Romanists doth speak of him And therefore the Pope in the time of the Trent Council would not suffer that title of the Council to proceed that it should be called the Representative because though he and his Courtiers esteemed him the Head of the Church and so should have been superiour to the body of the Church yet he conceived that they intended to take him in confusely in the Representative and so to exclude his Head-ship But secondly He then allows a man to be a seeker of his Religion then he doth allow him that liberty which he sometimes hath disputed against namely to exercise his judgement of discretion in matters of Religion for he would have him most prudently judge himself bound to to joyn her the Church in Faith being convinced that she directed most securely in Faith So this is theâ—r sense they allow discretion to joyn with them but not to differ Thirdly Should he be bound to joyn himself to the whole Church or not If to the whole then to that part locally which most agrees with the whole in Doctrine and discipline and practice But then can he not most prudently joyn himself to the Roman Church because that hath gone away from the Catholique in all those particulars And therefore we may conclude it to be our wisdom to find our direction in Faith most securely in the Scripture N. 20. This number he spends in the power of Councils To such power I made exceptions he would here remove them The first about the uncertainty of the irregularity of the Pope To this he saies he to whom the Church submitteth in calling the Council and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful Head to preside he is right these acts do supply all defects in the election But first Suppose he be not a Priest Can the Churches submission or admission of him make him a regular Pope And this That he is a Priest they cannot be sure of by certainty of Faith according to their Principles unless they had an omniscience to know the intention of the Ordainer and whether he was a right Bishop or not Secondly If so then Cajaphas was a right High Priest as before and yet he erred with the Council Therefore a Pope with the Council may erre Caiaphas was submitted to was admitted by the assembly of the Jews but this before And as to that he saies put the case of a Pope defining with a lawful Council and then prove him fallible if you can We answer First it seems then he would not stand to the maintaining of a Popes infallibility without a Council And so then he and the Jesuits must
of Scripture and Traditions were agreeable to the substance of Scripture or not if so then they hold their virtue by Scripture If not they remain under debate whether they were infallible Neither is Tradition before Scripture to be confounded with traditions after Scripture We can grant more to the former than we can to the latter both in the substance of the matter and in the manner of certification And for the time after the old Testament was written he doth well to say that it remained almost solely and alone to the Jews For what was Iob and why might not others of the learned Gentils travail for divine knowledge as well as Pythagoras and Plato and Orpheus into Egypt as Iustin Martyr saith of them Ninthly he answers to the cause put of a Pope's differing from the Council upon a question he saies nothing shall be deferred and yet no peril For if it were necessary to have a present definition the Holy Ghost would not forget to inspire the parties requisit to do their duties Ans Again What necessity then of every controversie to be ended Secondly How should the people know whether the business required a present definition Surely they may know by this that it did not require a present definition because if so the Holy Ghost would not have forgot to have inspired the parties requisite to do their duties Well then also we can say that we may be as confident that what is not clearly delivered in Scripture doth not require a full definition because if it had the Holy Ghost would not have forgot to inspire the Pen-men of Scripture to do their duties In the tenth answer he is very suspensive how to declare himself in the point of Ecclesiastical Monarchy He saies a Monarch in some Nations could not do all things without a Parliament But he thinks himself on the surer side that he is sufficiently assisted when he defineth with a Council Ans First why do they not speak out and tell us which is which The Church can end all controversies as they say but not that capital controversie about the Church That whereby all things are to be made manifest is that not to be made manifest We must see all things by the light but the light must be private Do they declaim against private Spirits and will not let us publiquely know the power of the Pope comparately to a Council and yet they together must be the subject of publique Authority And why do they tell us that the Scripture cannot prove it self and therefore we must not resolve our Faith in that and yet we must resolve our selves in the Authority of the Church and yet the Church cannot tell us where this Authority Supreme is or will not And it is all one to us for we are in the dark as well by their want of will to shew us light as of power But since it seems we may be saved in the opinion of the Jesuit or in the opinion of the Sorbonist we draw this advantage from it that notwithstanding we know not infallibly which part of the contradiction to hold in points of question we may yet be secured against damnation pendenti lite And what controversie is of such moment for an infallible Judge as who it is Secondly Infallibility may be in one as well as in many since it comes by the assistance of the Holy Ghost then if they think God hath provided absolutely the most plain and expedite way for the direction of his Church this must be placed in the Pope without a Council I hope the Holy Ghost needs no Council which cannot soon and easily be made in all the essentials And therefore he should not have compared the Pope with a Monarch but he should have compared upon this reckoning a Monarch with the Holy Ghost Then though a Monarch could not do all things without a Parliament yet a Pope might do all without a Council because the Pope should be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost as the Apostles were but they do not think so of a Monarch Again they think that the Pope is of divine institution and that a King is meerly a creature of the peoples and therefore he that hath a divine institution must needs have more divine assistance Again when he defineth with a Council he defineth not so much as Head of the Church but as a Bishop in communi with the rest as indeed anciently the custom was and this derogates from the Monarchy of the Church And if he had a priority of order this doth not infer a priority of Jurisdiction over all the Church which Pelagius and Gregory Bishops of Rome abhorred Eleventhly he saies not one Council have been opposite to another Ans This proposition in terms is not true The Council of Constantinople under Leo the Emperour decreed against Images The second Council of Nice decreed for them And what do they think of Pope Vigilius his judgement betwixt the Council of Chalcedon and the fifth Council of Constantinople about the Epistle of Ibas whether it conteined heresie or not And is not the African Council against Appeals opposite to the Trent Council which adds to the Catholique Apostolique Church the Roman as making the Roman to be omnium Ecclesiarum matrem magistram of all Churches the mother and mistress But this hath been touched before He goes on In the Nicene he the Pope erred not as you will grant nor in the three next General Councils as the Church of England grants Ans He saies well He erred not in the first Nicene But this antecedent will not make a conclusion or consequent that therefore he hath not or cannot erre in others It followeth not from a negative surely of one act to a negative of the power they are to prove that he cannot erre which is infallibility But secondly We say also that he could not erre in the other General Councils neither as Head of the Church because he was not Head of the Church He might have erred as a Bishop of Rome but as Head of the Church he could not erre not that we do assert him to have been Head of the Church but because we say he was not Head of the Church and therefore could not erre as such He goes on He subscribed not in the Council of Ariminum how then did he erre in it Yea because he subscribed not that Council is never accounted lawful by any but Arrians Ans He seems now to come to terms more moderate Before he speaks of Councils to be confirmed by the Pope Subscription is less and more general Every confirmation includes eminently a subscription but every subscription makes not a confirmation For they will not deny that other Bishops were wont to subscribe Secondly they may know that the 5. council of Constantinople went for good without his Subscription nay notwithstanding what he published for the tria Capitula which were condemned in the foresaid Council Therefore if they have
Authors And if some of theirs have professed to take testimonies upon his credit because they had not Books by them I may be easily excused for asking the question whether the Bishop of Bitonto did not say so and so in the Council of Trent He that asks a question seems to be wary of asserting And if the opinion of one able Doctor be sufficient to make a point probable as some of them have lately said this point of fact is not altogether unprovided of some hope of probability My Author is Bishop Iewel who speaks it more than once in his Apology Neither have they cause to bragge that their Church have been the men who were still imployed in the upholding the Authority of Councils Surely my Adversaries did pass by Cajetan and Bellarmin and Valentia and did not take notice of what they have said towards fallibility of Councils even lawful that so infallibility and Monarchy might be necessarily devolved from heaven as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Pope's lap All that make perstriction of the Authority of Councils are not hereticks it seems because some that are good Roman Catholicks do speak of their fallibility so that this infallibility should be intailed upon the Bishop universal And so they differ from my Adversaries platforme of infallible direction In this he shewes himself highly displeased for offering to compare the Determinations of Trent with the word of God He thinkes it fine doctrine that determinations of Councils should be examined by such as I and he is Ans it is halfe an argument for us that they are angry at this But first we do not speak of an Authoritative examination which is forensical but a rational inquiry which is for private satisfaction 2. If the Decrees of that Council be indeed infallible they will abide the test if not how can we believe them Do they think 3. That we are more bound to believe the council of Trent then the Beraeans were bound to believe what was said by St. Paul without discussing since specially they are pleased in the Trent Council somtimes to joyn St. Paul as partner with St. Peter in the honour of their Church 3. We may surely finde more cause to examine the Trent Council then some others since it hath not yet obteined in the Christian world the reputation of a lawful General Council therefore though we doe not examin others yet this we may 4. would they not have us preferre the doctrin of Trent before any differing from it yes surely then we must inquire into it and privately judge it otherwise we make a blind choice Fifthly If the consent of the major part which is most immediatly considerable in a Council should morally bind why should we not as well believe the Council of Ariminum since what else he hath pretended against it is not cogent Sixthly If they think that one cannot think well of a lawful General Council unless he believes their infallibility that proposition is easily denied They may be fallible and yet not faulted by me in piety or prudence Infallible conclusions do not follow upon moral principles The one makes them careful the other faithful but though they do not deceive me they may be deceived themselves And if their infallibility did depend upon their piety and prudence how are we infallibly certain of that upon which their infallibility should be grounded Nor does my consideration of a Council betray in me a want of charity or humility as he supposeth they have themselves as Disparates to Theological Faith and are not of the same Conjugation Humility disposeth me to think of my self meanly Charity disposeth me to think better of others because I know my own imperfections and do not know anothers perfections as Aquinas notes But if these were dispositive unto Faith yet not causal If causal of Faith yet of Faith humane not divine unless I did see Gods Word for believing men This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they can prove this we have no more to say Until then I can love my Adversaries and think humbly of my self And yet cannot be perswaded that my Adversaries are infallible And if they were infallible in the dispute how should infallibility be the prerogative of the Council confirmed by the Pope So then as long as I can give reverence to a Council without present Faith I am not posed but they who must beg the question In this he chargeth me with shifting because I said now let us not see the opinions by infallibility but the infallibility by your determinations whereas else where I say you should go a priori and shew that your Church is infallible and therefore her definitions to be admitted This in effect he supposeth to be my shift to evade his pressure of me Ans No such matter Good cause for both distinguish reasons and respects First I hope they think it lawful to urge both waies in a different kind of discourse we demonstrate the effect by the cause we know the cause by the effect Secondly The way a Priori is more distinct and therefore this would presently make an end of the controversie if it could be effected because it satisfies us in the cause Prove the infallibility and then we fall down or rise up to the definitions They are then to be taken ipso facto and they produce Faith ex opere operato as we may speak This the way of nature But when they cannot make this good then the other way and quoad nos is to shew us their infallibility by their determinations and an easie way it is to us to shew them the unlikeliness of infallibility by their determinations For it is sufficient to the negative of infallibility to find one errour in any of their definitions but it is not sufficient to them for the affirmative of infallibility to prove that the Church hath not erred in some particular definitions The latitude of the power is not discharged by some acts Quem saepe transit casus aliquando invent If it hath erred but once we are sure it can erre then infallibility is destroyed if it hath not erred in some yet it doth not follow that it hath not erred in others Yea if it hath erred in none we cannot ex vi formae conclude infallibility unless it be proved that the power of erring is bound in the Church Representative as the Schoolmen say the power of sinning is bound in the Church Triumphant Thirdly We are now upon the Hypothesis incidently and so it is very reasonable for us to go this way with them because a particular Church hath not the priviledges of the universal Church It is generally supposed that the universal Church cannot erre in things necessary but this is not granted to any Church of one denomination Now the Trent Council belongs to a particular Church and therefore as to that our way of proceeding is not irrational And therefore all that he saies upon this argument comes to
Church all he saies is nothing against so much use of it as I made For I do not argue so because there are such Ebraisms therefore this is to be so expounded we say it follows not as to an actual necessity of such an interpretation No but thus it will follow there are such Hebrew formes of prefacing therefore this may be so interpreted Now the possibility of such an exposition is sufficient to my purpose For possibility of the Contrary stops the mouth of infallibility If this or that be infallible it is not possible to be any other way but the sense may be otherwise therefore this is not the infallible sense so we agree with Dr. Taylor whom he quotes because the Doctor may deny the argumentation as quoad esse we intend it sufficiently quoad posse It may be otherwise expounded than they say therefore cannot we hereby infallibly know this infallibility of the Church Suppose the Church were infallible yet if we did not infallibly know so much we cannot make the Church our ground of Faith Nor could there be any consistence of their implicit Faith if they did not know infallibly that whatsoever the Church propounds is infallible And an exception against this interpretation is that it is new unheard of to all Antiquity and unto all men unto this age Ans This exception would have come better from some other since my adversary had no minde to answer me to some Authority of the Antient. It were worth the while to quit the Criticism upon condition they would hold to antiquity But whose saying was that Omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic And yet neither is this a sufficient answer unless the consent of the Fathers could make a conclusion to be of faith So then as the Florentine said of vertue that the shew of it is profitable but the practice not so also may it be said of the Italians that the shew of antiquity is of use to them but the thing not but also it will be too hard for every one of them to prove a negative neither were many of the Fathers Learned in the Hebrew tongue He goes on whether this infallibility be equall to that of the Apostles or not maketh not to our purpose Ans Surely infallibility never took any degrees with their Doctours It is not receptive of magis minus therefore if he asserts not an equall infallibility he asserts none less in infallibility is less then infallibility So then their Church now is not such as to rely upon equally to the Authority of the Apostles therefore it must be subordinate to Apostolical authority which indeed was in effect confessed before in that he granted that the Church was regula regulata And this is as much as the cause is worth He saies I note him in a Parenthesis for a French Catholicke for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a Council Ans No. He or his scribe is much mistaken I asked him whether he had a minde to the opinion of the French Catholick because he in one place spake of the infallible assistance of the Church without any mention of the Pope Now if he did on purpose leave out the Pope in his account of infallibility then he is like to be a French Catholick And although all Romane Catholicks allow infallibility to a Pope defining with a Council cumulative yet all Roman Catholicks do not allow infallibility to the Pope only then when he defines with a Council As some Catholicks do allow full Authority to a Council without a Pope so some Catholicks allow infallible Authority to a Pope without a Council And this is more then I needed to have said to him that sales in this paragraph so little to me Yet he will charge me with charging him with an opinion which brings him within perill of blasphemy His opinion was this God gives as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Council as he gave to him who did deliver his word in Scripture My reason was this for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as infallibly by his Church as in his word He denies the inference I maintain the charge more pressely thus He that inferres no need of Scripture comes within perill of blasphemie He that saies such words as before infers no need of Scripture Therefore To the major in effect he hath said nothing his discourse is bent against the matter of the minor and he would deny it by severall instances which come not up to the case in hand First because he speaks infallibly by the Church of the Law of nature for two thousand yeares And why more blasphemy now To this in the matter of it we have spoken before As applied here we shall answer to it now First he did not then speak infallibly by his Church if the termes by his Church be meant reduplicatively to whatsoever was said by his Church if it be understood thus that whatsoever truth was proposed by God was proposed by the Church it may be more easily granted In the former sense the reason were good if it were true in the latter it may be supposed true yet it is not sufficient to his use who urgeth that nothing is proposed by the Church but that which is true and from God Yea 2. it cannot be absolutly granted in the second sense if we take the Church to have spoken from God in any way of a Council for much truth of what was proposed came to some of them by way of prophecy 3. The termes God speak infallibly by his Church may relate more strictly to the Agent or to the Instrument God spake infallibly whatsoever he spake by them but God did not speak infallibly by them whatsoever they said Or thus the words are true hypothetically if God spake he spake infallibly by them for he cannot speak otherwise but that whatsoever they said was spoken to them infallibly by God is a question Yea 4. Will they think that there is as much reason for infallible speaking by the Church when the Scripture Canon is compleated as when there was none As to Gods speaking by Moses we have spoken to it lastly As to Gods speaking to some Gentiles by the Church that was not ordinary and therefore it fits not our case neither can they prove that the faith of the Gentiles was not wrought in them by the efficiencie of the spirit of God notwithstanding they had the object of their faith from the Church Neither is it now the same case of teaching us infallibly by the Church as at the time when the Apostles did write because the Christian Church was then to be settled upon the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul speaks and now the building can stand upon that foundation therefore were they extraordinary officers and lasted but for a time And yet if they can prove that their Church-doctrine is no other then that which was
the Word or by the Sword And therefore consideratis considerandis if he hath no other hold for his Hypothesis he hath none And so Lycurgus the Lawmaker might well die in Crete for his fiction that the laws he gave the people came from Apollo of Delphos As to the charge against their Church about the Millenary opinion he would here answer it N. 3. that it was not admitted by the supreme pastour of the Church defining with the Church assembled in a Council Ans first If this were a reason it would destroy all the traditions for three hundred years because they were not admitted by the supreme Pastour defining with the Church in a general Council for they say there was no council for the first 300 years But secondly was not tradition then an infallible rule if it was that is no answer if not the Scripture or there was no infallible rule at all and this contradicts them in both for they say there was an infallible rule and not Scripture But he would also say it was not generally admitted by the Church diffused or universal Ans But I hope the diffused Church adds no authority to a matter of faith This was indeed Alphonsus a Castro's opinion but my adversary was not of capacity for that conceit because he annexeth authority to the Pope and a Council and if the diffused Church which includes the people have any moment toward credibility why is it denied to them to have the Judgment of private discretion since their consent also makes a suffrage And as for the diverse Fathers not holding it as a Tradition they may excuse us certainly unless they will prove it He should not surely prove it by Iustin for he is accounted for it himself though many did not acknowledg it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sufficient for a Tradition Is it not If not let them shew more for other Traditions which they hold if so then that went for one And then the many were not Fathers St. Austin otherwise Neither doth this conclude against Catholick Tradition in all use but may in point of faith till we be as certain of Tradition Till that time I am satisfied with the former place of Cyrill of Ierusalem and when we shall be as certain of Tradition derived from the Apostles times through all ages of the Church in points of Faith then we shall not urge this plea that if this opinion of an Apostolical Tradition was so current in the Church upon the credit of one Papias at first how shall we be ever sure in the account of Traditions which is which N. 4. He hath learned to speak here high that he might at least at last go off with noyse He calls it a demonstration which yet by his own words is to be held up by a supposition Neither upon the supposition supposed will it be very neare a demonstration for it concludes not per se but by accident and also it concludes rather or primarily negatively that other Churches are not the infallible Judge And if the discourse were good it would come to this that other Churches should fare the worst for their modesty and the Roman should fare the better for their impudency And if the antient Church was infallible notwithstanding it did not say that it was infallible or else they differ from the antient Church in an essentiall praedicate then their Church is noâ— infallible notwithstanding it saies that it is infallible So then upon the whole matter his supposition is not admitted and therefore could they well prove their Church to be fairer for this priviledge then any other the supposition being admitted yet since it is not admitted it proves nothing in re nor by their own confession And yet if it were admitted his discourse would not make him to be as good as his word in a demonstration And yet this ratiocination of his instead of an un-answerable argument against us but is proved not to be so may be an unanswerable argument against them that they lie at catch and have need of that which all other Churches have left and also it proves that they have no better proof What I said more to what he said more by anticipation he saies nothing to But he ingageth himself in the end to a better account of the Roman Church So then I have for the present my discharge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet his Epiphonema is this Petrae durities nulli magis quam ferienti nota And not to be behind hand with him I return him that of St. Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS Errata which the judicious and can did Reader is desired to observe PAge 71 l. 9. r. uncreated p. 84. l. 6. r. Pelagians p. 115. l. 7. r. derogates p. 116. l. 2. r. substrated p. 121. l. 15. p. 12â— l. 7. r. these p. 148. l. 15. r. destruction p. 236. l. 14. r. aequivalent p. 238. l. 20. r. properly p. 248. l. 31. r. heard p. 516. l. 5. r. read p. 518. l. 4 5. r. dissent this errour is to be mended as likewise there for these or their as oft as it occurs p. 52â— l. 5. r. recidivation p. 527. l. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 528. l. 28. r. less p. 5â—9 l. 5. r. pauperius p. 534. l. 11. r. Catholica p. 535. l. 14. r. Lesbian rule p. 588. l. 4. 1. Homoufiasts p. 5â—0 l. 23. r. Sophisme p. 544. l. 25. dele A. p. 550. l. 3â— r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 593. l. 23. r. quaeritur p. 594. l. 13. r. sworn p. 609. l. 28. r. dolus p. 629. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 662. l. 25. r. quâ ibid. l. 28. unusquisque p. 680. l. 15. r. Agends p. 695. in the margin r. Dr. Potter p. 726. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 730. l. 5. r. decretory weapons p. 742. l. 15. r. now p. 744. l. 26. r. a posse non ad non posse non valet p. 200. which should be p. 930. l. 28 9. r. Cardinal's p. 946. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 13 r. Prudentia p. 953. l. 4. r. qui ne le croit p. 964. l. 10. r. by images p. 975. l. 2. r. Greek Latin Edition p. 977. l. 19. r. without indempnity p 980. l. 7. r. Antoninus p. 985. l. 16. r. Encratites p. 994. l. 23. r. joyn with her the Church p. 1000 l. 21 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1060. l. 19. r. one p. 1066. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The mistakes of the Printer in false pointing litterals and folio's may be rectified in reading
Infallibility pretended were either proved or quitted we might rejoyce in more hope of Peace to Christendome If it were sufficiently proved we should presently yeild if it were quitted they might possibly yield And I would the Pope would turn Patriarch again but untill it be Proved and thank God for the Nicene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and no more To my Adversary if I have shewed my self at all uncivil I am very sory for it and what unhandsome Reflexions there are made by him if any upon me I put up upon good account If the pen at any time makes a disorderly sally out unto a perstriction of the person it is a Liberty which I had rather give than take And his Papers are as well and as whole printed as mine and I am glad that they are printed in the same character which is not usual And if I have made in mine any blots as very likely I have about Isidor Clarius or any other Author or Matter I am very ready to acknowledge it it being not in my way to pretend to infallibilitie nor my mind to affect the Reputation of him that was denominated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is enough to me to have given any hints to others for better use If I have found any smooth stone out of the Brook of Scripture Let some able Pastour of the Church throw it at that Roman Goliah and let it sink into his Head and let Saint Jerom's Sword cut off not his Head but his Headship My inability yet will doe me this good that it doth strongly prove their Infallibility not to be good which such a Punie of the Church can go near to discompose and ruffle Towards an Epistle this sufficient since I think my self not worthy to give any advice Onely by my experience I may remind thee that it is time for us to knit the vein again of the Spouse of Christ in the breach whereof our Adversaries do so much triumph This Vlysses would have believe it thou canst not serve God more nor the Roman better Scissura domestica turbat Rem populi titubatque foris quod dissidet intus And I wish that by the light of this conflict thou mightst see that the Roman and the Sectarie are both upon the Extremes and that the Church of England as to Religion and Government goes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then Reader since my Adversary hath also appealed unto thee unto thee let him goe As he in his Rhetoriques l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thy servant in Christ our good Master Sh. A Letter to his friend WORTHY SIR I Have with much eagerness and delight run over your solemical discourse in answer to an interpretative kind of Challenge made by a confident but close adversary whose wit I cannot but commend as in hiding his name so in picking out so fit a time for the scattering of his insinuating papers when our so lamentable distractions yeild him so favourable an advantage So have we known ill neighbours take opportunity of their pilfring when the house is on fire So did the crafty Amalekite fall upon the hind most of Israel when they were faint feeble and tired with their travel Although herein he hath made a good amends and merited our thanks in that his bold intimations have drawn you forth into the light and fetcht from you this your abundantly satisfactory Answer for his full Conviction and the settling of unstable minds in this busie Controversie Certainly there is not a greater Imposture in all Rome then in the name and plea of the Church as our Learned Bishop Morton hath long since laid it out or that wins more of weak and injudicious soules For what a short cut is here of all controversies in Religion what a sure-seeming refuge for the soule what a present and sensible Eviction of all gainsayers The Catholike Church cannot erre The Roman Church is the Catholike The Dictates of that Church are as evident as infallible The Scriptures are ambiguous The Church is clear and conspicuous we know where Rome stands In the communion of that onely is salvation Out of that Ark we drown within it is perfect safety May this be made good Who would trouble his heart or his head with any further disquisition of truth Who need to care for any other spiritual priviledge then to be free of Rome O easie security of our Faith O cheap charter of assured Salvation Whiles these plausible impostors goe thus about to flatter their ignorant and credulous Clients into a dangerous if not deadly misbelief putting this broken reed into their hands you have thus seasonably discovered and checked their fraud and cleerly shewn to these simple and mis-taught souls how unsafe it is for them to trust to so crazie and perilous a supportation which must needs in stead of easing wound them I shall therefore hereupon expect much good issue from this your well bestowed labour Why should not this your so convictive discourse work effectually upon an ingenuous adversary to win him to the acknowledgement of so well-manifested a truth and settle those wavering minds which seemed to be a little shaken with so strongly-confident suggestions and prevent the danger of seducement in those poor souls whose simplicity exposeth them to the subtle temptations of misguidance into errour Such blessing of success I wish to your learned and charitable work and to your self who have ever approved your self so well deserving and pious a son of the Church of England some better encouragement then these times have yet afforded either to you or to Higham April 8. 1654. Your unfainedly devoted friend and fellow-labourer in the work of the Lord JOS. HALL B. N. POSITION IT is not sufficient to make one a Catholick in point of faith that he believe the same things which the Catholick Church believeth unless the Catholick Church be also the Ground of his belief for whosoever doth believe any point upon no other Ground but only because it seems to his private Judgment to be contained in Scripture or to be in it self true yea though he should believe in this manner every thing which the Church believeth yet he would not be a Catholick and so may be damned for want of faith And the Reason is because seeing that faith is to believe a thing because God revealeth it and that there is no infallible way without a Miracle whereby God his Revelation cometh to us but onely by the Churches Proposition it followeth that we cannot believe any thing certainly upon the Motive of God his Revelation unless our belief be likewise grounded upon the Churches Proposition Wherefore the faith of a Catholick must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it for all other perswasions of our own discourse are resolved at last into our particular Judgments or else into the Judgments of other particular Men and so cannot breed in us Catholick and divine