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
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
Apostolical or that those who bring new doctrine are as well inspired as the Apostles the Roman Church shall now be Apostolical And if there were now as great a necessity of the infallible direction of the Church as there was in the times of the Apostles by them then why should not the Apostolical office have continued in the number of twelve and so all the Apostles should have had successours which they must not say who maintain the Monarchy of the Church Neither doth that instance of Iohn the Baptist teaching the Meâ—â—as which also the Scripture teacheth come up to the case First Because Iohn the Baptist was but a singular person but the Church now is considered under a promise of continual succession and as is pretended by them with the perpetual gift of infallibility therefore though there was Scripture then besides Iohns Testimony yet what need of it now if there be a constant infallibility in the Church Secondly There is a difference in the case ex parte Scripturae in regard oâ— Scripture which was not then compleated therefore there might be more necessity of St. Iohns Testimony and of the voice from heaven and of the Testimony of miracles But now the Canon is consigned what need of the infallible direction of the Church and if there be an infallible direction standing in the Church what need of a standing rule it may serve for a commonitorium as the Cardinal So the Scripture shall give us but an application of the Churches doctrine The Scripture that must not be a suâ—ficient rule the Church that is the direct and plain way that fools cannot erre They may erre by the Scripture they cannot erre by the Church Therefore in effect not only will there be no need of Scripture but there would be need of none But more closely That which is not of use without the Church and that which the Church may be without is not necessary The Scripture is of no use without the Church and the Church may be without Scripture Therefore according to their premises the Scripture should not be necessary and how farre is it from blasphemy to say that the Scripture is not necessary If to accuse Scripture be to accuse God as Nilus before Then to say there was no need of Scripture is to accuse God of inspiring so many Pen-men for no necessary purpose For although after all means of Faith still millions do not believe as he saies yet since according to their doctrine no sense of Scripture in point of Faith is to be believed but as taken from the Church since the Word not written takes up so much of necessary matter since the pâ—tfecter and the wiser are to be sublimated by Traditions since the common people are not to be conversant in Scripture in a knowen tongue what necessary purpose doth the Scripture serve to It is true superflua non nocent as the rule is and Utile per inutile non vitiatur true But yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their principles the Scripture will be superfluous For that which is more than is necessary is not necessary that which is not necessary what is it Therefore if any of their men should be found to be traditores Bibliorum as some were of old the Roman Donatists would never make a separation from them He goes on The Church is not more Enthusiastical now than she was for four thousand years before she had all the promises which Christ made her of an assistance which should be at least as speacill and full as she ever had before Ans This is positively no answer but somewhat by compare we press it The Church in that time did not de communi challenge immediate inspiration therefore that Church which doth so now is more Enthusiastical Secondly It is a begging of the question since there is not now that need after the Canon is compleated Thirdly We return them their argument what assistance the Church had formerly it hath now the Church formerly had not de communi in fallible assistance therefore not now For the Prophets and the Apostles and the writers of the Scripture are not rationally to be included in the common account of the Church in our case Let them chuse which they will stand to If they put them into the promiscuous account of the Church let them now shew us such a Church If they account them extraordinary let them shew ordinarily such And he confounds himself in what follows Before she delivered only what she had received by tradition and by Scripture She hath received Scripture by Tradition too hath she not Why doth he then divide Scripture from Tradition in the way of its coming to us For the chief reckoning they make to us of Scripture is upon the credit of Tradition But he means Tradition ex parte materiae it may be because they think Tradition conteins other matter than Scripture equally to be believed But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Interpreting which according to the sense truly intended by the Holy Ghost the same Holy Ghost doth assist her so that here is no new Revelation claimed to be made to her but an infallible assistance to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed Ans He cannot well clear himself of Enthusiasm upon the account of Tradition Any thing beside the word written equally to be believed is matter of Enthusiasm But they pretend somewhat beside the word written equally to be believed therefore are they in danger of Enthusiasm And I do not see well how they can answer it But now he endeavours to purge himself of this accusation in point of interpretation of Scripture They say they do not interpret Scripture by revelation but by infallible assistance Well But how shall we blind souls be assured infallibly of this infallible assistance We may not examine it by the judgment of private discretion may we If we may then this is gained Must we believe it Yes Why Because God hath it to be his will that we should absolutely believe the Church Shew me where By the Church that is in question By the Scriptures what Texts Those produced But the question is whether they are rightly interpreted according to the true sense What will they say now Nothing but the Church hath infallible assistance And this they must believe by a revelation without Scripture and this is an Enthusiasm And the Roman church pretending this priviledge above other Church's makes it a private revelation Again though there are several waies of revelation yet I would aske how many waies there are of infallible assistance distinguished from revelation let them tell us or else conclude against themselves that they must have the sense of Scripture interpreted by revelation because by infallible assistance The pen-men of Scripture they had infallible assistance but that was by revelation Let us know what infallible assistance there is without a revelation specially since Stapelton and some others likely will have the
Experience as universal as that whereof Mr. Cressy speaks doth also demonstrate it as impossible That any present Church Visible much less that His should put an end to a Debate between multitudes of persons whose Interest and Byasse is multifariously divided as well as They. Men must equally agree which they never will first what is to be meant by the present Visible Church and after That that she is Infallible before she can possibly put an end to all their Dissensions in their Debates But what does he mean by the present Church Visible Does he mean all the Churches that do submit unto the Pope as their Soveraign Pastor either IN or OUT of a General Council If the first he must mean either a written or speaking Council If the former Then he should not have distinguish'd it from the present Church Visible as here he does Then there needed no more then One but That by all means must be a standing General Council from the beginning of the Church till the Day of Judgement And then the Church was never able to make her Members the better for her Infallibility or to prove she had such a privilege by being able to put an End to a Debate between Multitudes of different Interest and Judgement in several Nations either before the Nicaene Council which was the first that was General or since the Council held at Trent which they avow to be the last But if he means only a speaking Council then he confesses that at present there is no such present Visible Church as can Infallibly put an end to the Debate above mention'd even because there is no such General Council Which being so where is the boasted Infallibility How shall we find or comprehend it or how is any Creature the wiser for it And if he means what was said in the second Branch of my first Dilemma All the Churches that own the Pope as their Soveraign Pastor not in but OUT of a General Council Then the Pope in his Conclave or College of Cardinals which by the way is a Conventicle though not a Council not Concilium but Conciliabulum must be the sole proper speaking Judge who can end such a Debate as before we spake of so that in Him as in her Head the present Visible Church does entirely lodge at least in respect of her Infallible Judgement which none but the Pope out of a Council can have or utter But thus the Romanists Absurdities will be more shamefull than before For the Pope may be an Heretick if not an Heathen Pope Marcellinus was the first and Pope Liberius the second And there is no better arguing than to the Aptitude from the Act. Nay in some of the 30 Schisms which a Onuphr in Chro. p. 50. Onuphrius reckons up in the Church of Rome before the word Protestant was ever heard of when two or three Popes did sit at once 't was even impossible to determine which Pope was the true and which the false The Councils of b Concil Constantiense praecipuè congregatum extinguendi schismatis Causâ quis esset verus Pontifex vix agnoscebat v. Hist Concil à Paulo V. Edit To. 4. p. 127. Constance and c Statim illud in Controversiam venit Num Synodus Pisana in Illos potuerit animadvertere cùm eorum alteruter verus esset Pontifex sed uter is esset non constaret ibid. p. Seqq. Pisa whereof the former by the way was a General Council in the Catalogue set forth by Pope Paulus Quintus were utterly at a Losse in their Debates of this matter From whence it follows unavoidably that Mr. Cressy must not dare to avow this last notion of The present Visible Church as well because it is not That to which he dares say the last Recourse is to be had as because she can too easily declare her sense in another way than as she was ever represented by her Pastors out of all Nations that is to say by a General Council which yet the present visible Church can never do saith Mr. Cressy chap. 9. p. 95. But when I say he must not dare to avow this last notion of the present visible Church to which he gives the last Recourse and to which he ascribes Infallibility I mean he must not for the future not but that for the present he dares to do it Because he tells us expresly p. 97. and as dogmatically too as without al proof That the present Superiours living and speaking must conclude all Controversies their Interpretation of Scripture and Fathers their Testimony of Tradition must more then put to silence all contradiction of particular persons or Churches it must also subdue their mindes to an Assent and this under the penalty of an Anathema or cutting off from the body of Christ This is said by Mr. Cressy concerning the living and speaking Judges of his Church Judges for the time being in every Age. Quite forgetting what he had said not long before p. 95. That Reason Inspiration and Examples of Primitive Fathers must joyntly make up the only Guide which He affirms to be Infallible For unless they all concurr as he had said before that p. 93. together with the present visible Governours to whom he there gives a judging determining power That which we take to be Reason and Inspiration and the sense of the Primitive Church may deceive and misguide us Now besides that this saying destroyes the former where no less was ascrib'd to the present visible Superiours living and speaking than here is attributed to all four Requisites in conjunction we know that Reason may be deceiv'd Inspiration be counterfeit by some unclean spirit which fallible Reason must be the Judge of primitive Fathers subject to Error and present Superiours much more than Primitive And many fallible Guides can never make up one Infallible any more than many Planets can make one Sun or many Acts of finite knowledge one true omniscience For as Mr. Cressy does confess that Infallibility and Omniscience are incommunicable Attributes of God Himself p. 98. so he imply's a contradiction when he saith they are communicable to any creature such as is his present visible Church And another Contradiction as bad or worse when he saith that a man although of much Ignorance may in a sort be Omniscient within his sphere p. 99. which is as if he should have said That a man may be able to have a knowledge of all things because he may so know them All as to be Ignorant of some But then with the help of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meanest man is as omniscient as is his Roman Catholick Church because within his determinate sphere he must needs have a knowledge of All he knows and of more than she knows the Roman Church hath no knowledge So again when he would shew how a creature may be Infallible though he had said that God Himself is incommunicably such p. 98. he has no better a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Luke 10.16 We say first this seems not to be rightly applyed to the businesse we are about for this was directed not to the Governors of the Church but to the seventy Disciples or Elders which were sent by Christ to preach the VVord Secondly If you doe extend it to the Representative Church yet doth it not command subjection of judgement alwayes to whatsoever is said but not to despise them as is intimated by what followes and he that despiseth you despiseth me VVe may differ without despising And Thirdly If you will from hence argue that whatsoever was determined in a Council was also determined by Christ then Honorius was by Christ determined an Heretick as you may see in the practicks of the sixth Oecumenical Synod as Nilus in his second Book And if you say that the Church cannot erre in a General Council then resolve Nilus the reason why the Pope doth not hear a General Council for if that General Council did not erre as by your argument it must not then the Pope did erre As for the other places of Holy Scripture which you produce of Christs being with his Church to the end of the world and of his promise of leading his Church into all truth VVe answer together First Though the promise be extendible to the end of the world yet it is not necessary to understand it so as that there shall alwaies be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles which is hard to affirm since we cannot say that there is such necessity for such assistance or such dispositions in the Governours of the Church to receive such assistance Secondly The Promise is made good by a sufficient direction of the Church to their end of happinesse although not without possibility of error For every simple error doth not deprive the Church of Salvation and then it may also recover it self from errour by more perusal of the Scriptures But if it may at all erre it hath not the property of a ground of Faith nor a just capacity of an Infallible communication of all things which are to be believed You go on Now this Church whose Authority is thus warranted did precede the Scriptures Answ VVarranted as a Church but not as so not as Infallible Did precede the Scriptures which for a great part were written upon emergent occasions as you say Answ As for the writing of Scriptures and the emergent occasions you may be further referred to Doctor Field whom you made use of against me VVhatsoever the occasion was the end was to make what was written a sufficient rule of Faith and Manners And as for your objection and inference upon it VVe answer with a distinction the Scripture is considerable two wayes either in respect to the substance of Doctrine or secondarily in respect to the manner of delivery by writing in the first regard the Scripture did precede the Church for the Church was begotten by it which to them was as certain as the written to us And if you could make your Traditions of proper name equally certain you would say somewhat And as for Scripture that which is written doth binde though it doth not properly binde as written You say that the Church was called the Pillar and ground of Truth before it was written and so you say might be said of other passages We answer As that place expressed it doth not appear to us that it was so called since first we find it in termes in Saint Pauls Epistle But if so or other like were used before the answer before will serve By all which places the authority of the Church is commended to us and we are referred to the Church as a Guide in all our Doubts So you say and so we say Where is the Adversary How doth this conclude contradictorily We confesse that the Authority of the Church is commended to us in Scripture but not directly in every place you name nor in any is it so commended to us as to ground our Faith We confesse we are referred to the Ministers for Direction and to the Governours for jurisdiction yet are not the Latter Masters of our Faith unto whom we should be bound in a blind Obedience of Universal assent or practice We take their advice but we are not by them determined in our Faith We may beleeve what they say but not because they say it As it is drawn from Scripture so it draweth us If they make it probable that it is so because they say it yet it hath not the certainty of Faith without the Word of God I should be very tender of incompliance with the judgement of the whole Church but yet I must have for my warrant of Faith the Lord saith And although there be no appeal from a General Council yet have they no infallible judgement You proceed even the Scripture it self is beleeved upon the Tradition and authority of the Church Answer This was touched before in the case of Saint Austin and it is in effect answered as before by Doctor Field Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church but we doe not take them to be Canonical by Tradition from the Church The authority of the Church moves me as to the Negative not to dissent but assent is settled to them as such in the way of Faith because they are such In thy Light we shall see Light as the Psalmist speaks Psalm 36.9 or by thy Light so by Scripture we see Scripture Next follows the Expostulation which may be put into this discourse Either we ground our beleef upon the Church or upon our own fancy and private Interpretation of Scripture c. Answer We deny your disjunction VVe ground our beleef neither upon the authority of the Church as you nor upon fancy neither as some have done who have been better friends to Romans then they have been to us as Doctour Whitaker told Campian upon a like imputation of Anabaptastical fancies VVe differ from you because we allow to private Christians a judgement of discretion or discerning which sure is commended in that precept Prove all things in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians 5.21 We differ from those who magnifie their private interpretations because we say they should be directed by their Ministers and ordered by the Bishops the Pastours of the Church chiefly when they are assembled in a General Council wherein is the highest power of Oyer and Terminer as we may speak of hearing and ending differences in the Church yet we cannot say that we are absolutely bound unto their Canons we having the judgement of private discretion and they not the judgement of Infallibility And if you cannot say that they are absolutely without any doubt but true without doubt we can say that we should not absolutely beleeve them Every possible defect of certainty in the Object excludes Faith the certainty whereof admits no falsity Therefore can we not presently yeeld or assent to whatsoever is by them defined
is strangled See here among Necessary things one is to abstain from blood which Christians do not nor think not to be done for they freely eat black Puddings and also to abstain from things strangled as when we strangle Chickens and eat them freely If you tell me that Scripture onely is Iudge of Controversies I will tell you that by the Iudgement of this Iudge following no other as infallible woe be to the Opinion of all Catholiques and Protestants who hold it lawful to work upon Saturdayes unlawful on Sundayes lawful to eat Blood and Strangled things unlawful to abstain from them as still forbidden woe I say to our Opinion for it not onely will not be judged as undoubtedly true by Scripture but also it will and that undoubtedly be judged false by the Places now cited I pray tell me here how Men of mean capacity yea how Men of the greatest capacity in the World shall be able to finde by the judgement of Scripture onely what is Infallibly to be believed in these points in which so many hundred Thousands of Jewes damnably differ from us Did not all this Kingdome of England grounded upon Scriptures clear enough as they said both hold and swear that they held the King the Head of the Church can any point in the Church be of higher concernment to the Church then to know for certain their own Head And yet this point is now no longer ascertained us by the Infallible judgement of Scripture For another example what Controversie can more import then to be undoubtedly and by Infallible Authority secured which books of Scripture be Canonical and the certain Word of God and which be not You say there is no Infallibility of any verity to be had but by the Scripture But I say that in all the Scripture no Infallibility can be had concerning the Canon of the Scripture wherefore either we cannot know this most important point of all points infallibly or else we must acknowledge the Church to be Infallible for the Scripture in this point is wholly silent We dispute and differ highly about the books of Macchabees whether they be the certain Word of God or no. I pray tell me how shall this grand Controversie be decided and decided Infallibly by the â—udgement of Scripture Luther denyeth the Apocalypse to be true Scripture we all in England stand out against him I pray tell me what Scripture we have against him that is Infallible without begging the question which is called into Controversie We all believe the Gospel of St. Matthew not onely to be the true Gospel of Christ and his Word but also to be the Gospel of St. Matthew as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark If any Man should deny this what place of Scripture could we cite against him or what Infallible ground have we of this our belief The Marcionists the Cerdonists the Manichaeans do absolutely deny St. Matthews Gospel to be Gods Word This Controversie you say and all other Controversies of Faith is to be ended by the Scripture I ask what place of Scripture will end this Controversie and all other Controversies about all other books of Scripture which have almost all been denyed to be Gods Word by some Hereticks or other And as for St. Matthew you must know that all Ancient Writers no one excepted do say that he did write in Hebrew and yet neither his Hebrew Gospel nor any one certain Copy of it is extant in the World Tell me then upon what undoubted Ground you beleeve any thing that is in St. Matthews Gospel onely The Greek Translation which we have was made by God knows whom for we know not He might be a faithful or unfaithful Translator he might use a false uncorrect Copy he might mistake in many places by Ignorance in many by Negligence or Malice Upon what Infallible ground shall a converted Manichaean as St. Austin for example believe this Greek Gospel which we have By what Scripture will you presse him to it yea upon what Scripture do you your selves beleeve this Gospel this Greek Translation of S. Matthew If you tell me Saint Matthew did write in Greek I must tell you that all Antiquity no one antient Author excepted say the contrary How will you then ground Infallible belief upon your so new and so uncertain Opinion When this question was moved whether any Book was to be received as the Infallible Word of God or no The Holy Fathers could never finde any more undoubted ground then that the Church did allow or not allow of such Books to be held for Gods undoubted Word Upon this ground St. Athanasius in fine Synopsis receiveth the Gospel of St. Matthew and the other Three Gospels and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas Upon this Ground Tertullian St. Hierome St. Austin and St. Leo professe themselves to admit such and to deny other Books to be Canonical Upon this ground it is that Eusebius Hist Eccles l. 3.19 saith such Scriptures are held for true genuine and manifestly allowed by the opinion of all because they are so According to the Tradition of the Church and that by this Evident Note or Mark they are distinguished from others Behold the most perspicuous mark by which Scriptures could be Infallibly known to be or not be Gods undoubted Word is the Tradition of the Church Whence St. Austin giving a reason to the Manichaeans who believed some part of the Gospel why he cited the Acts of the Apostles which they believed not saith thus Which Book of the Acts it is necessary for me to believe if I believe the Gospel being the Catholick Authority in like manner commendeth both these Scriptures to me So he contra Ep. Fund c. 4. By this the Author of the Reply may see how Insufficient his Answer pag. 25. is when he saith Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church but we do not take them to be Canonical upon her Tradition but assent is setled in them as Canonical in the way of Faith because they are such In thy light we shall see light so by Scripture we shall see Scripture So he but not so any one of the Fathers who were most often pressed to give a reason why they believed such Books to be Canonical why not None of these professed themselves to be so sharp sighted that by seeing onely Canonical Scriptures they could see them to be Canonical Scriptures and that so manifestly as to ground their Faith upon it You by the Apocalyps see it to be Canonical your most illuminated Luther could not see it to be so by that light By all the light he had he Judged St. James his Epistle to be made of Straw yet you see in it a light shewing undoubtedly it to be Gods Word You cannot see the two first Books of Macchabees to be Canonical yet St. Austin believed them to be so for that the Councel of Carthage Can. 47. received them for
their Souls upon that their conceived certainty Thus you see when the Scripture in four several places delivereth these four words This is my Body Men will hold it to be clear that so clear words be not clear and will venture their Salvation upon this their Imagination In this and many other points we say the Scripture is clear for us The Lutherans say it is clear for them The Calvinists say it is clear for them We have conferred Place with Place we have looked in the Originals and after all this the Scripture doth not decide this Controversie but when all is done we are as far from Agreeing and being brought to the undoubted knowledge of the most important truth as we were at the beginning Another very strong Argument to declare that the Scripture cannot be the Judge of all Controversies in points of Faith necessary to Salvation is this That there be many points the believing of which is necessary to Salvation which points are no where set down clearly in Scripture For first you make it the chief point of all points to believe the Scripture to be the Judge of all Controversies and by it self sufficient to end them all I ask where is this point of points which you make the ground of your belief where is it I say set down in Scriptures and that so clearly that no prudent doubt can be made but that such words clearly say what you say Doth not Saint Athanasius in his Creed put down as an undoubted Article of Catholick Faith which Faith as he saith without a Man hold it entirely and inviolably without all doubt he shall perish eternally doth he not put down there that we must believe That God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father only that the holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but doth proceed and that both from the Father and the Son And that he who will be saved must believe thus And yet how far are these most hard points from being clearly deliver'd in the Scripture So also that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father and of the same Substance is a certain Article of Faith and yet no where clearly delivered in Scripture but was believed by All upon the sole Authority of the Church which consequently was believed Infallible I have already shewed that the necessary cōmandment of keeping the Sunday in place of the Saturday is no where in Scripture but rather the contrary How then can I believe this for the Scripture or for any clear place of it there being no such place to be found I have also shewed that it is no where in Scripture set down at all much lesse set down clearly and manifestly which Books of Scripture be Canonical which not How then by the Testimony of Scripture which giveth no Testimony at all of this point can I believe such books undoubtedly to be such not to be Canonical Baptisme of Children to be Necessary to their salvation is a prime point of Belief and yet you cannot believe this prime point upon any clear place of Scripture for there is no such place but you must all say with the great Saint Austin That though nothing for certain can be alledged out of Canonical Scriptures in this point yet in this point the truth of Scriptures and consequently a sufficient ground for Faith is kept by us when we do that which seemed good to the Catholick Church which Church the Authority of the same Scriptures doth commend Contra Crescon l 1.13 And this following the Tradition of the Church he calleth The most true and inviolable Rule of Truth He holdeth therefore Tradition of the Church so Infallible that it may be a ground for Faith He was taught so by Saint Paul 2 Thes 2. Hold the Traditions which you have received either by word of Mouth or by Epistle Upon which place Saint Chrysostome having taught that the Apostles delivered many things by word of Mouth not set down any where in writing he saith that these unwritten Traditions are worthy of the same belief which those deserve which are written It is a Tradition of the Catholick Church Seek no further So he But you say I must seek further to find this in Scripture yet Saint Chrysostome tells me that being a Tradition of the Church it is Gods Word and upon this account as worthy to be believed as if it were his written Word for it is the being his Word and not the being of his written Word which maketh it Infallibly true Well then It having been made clear by all these reasons and authorities that the Scriptures cannot be intended by Christ for the Judge of all our Controversies in Faith and that their reading cannot be that Holy way a way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it Let us see where this way is to be found and who is to be judge to define all Controversies with Infallible authority so that all are bound to submit their Interiour judgement in which all faith consists to this Authority it being high Treason against Christ not to submit to an Authority instituted by him purposely to oblige all to this submission I say this Judge is the Catholique Church This I will prove first and this being proved I will shew briefly that no Church but the Roman can prudently be held to be this Catholique Church In proof of the Catholique Church her being Judge of all Controversies I alledge first those words Matth. 16. v. 18. I say unto thee that is to St. Peter by name Thou art Peter that is Thou art a Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it that is those Gates of Hell out of which so many damnable Errours shall issue shall never prevail by inducing any damnable Error into that Church which I will build upon thee O Peter and thy Successours which I add because this Church was not to be built upon the Person of St. Peter onely for then this fair building had fallen to the ground when St. Peter had died They who do say that the Church may fall into damnable Errors do say that the Church may fall to the ground and that the Gates of Hell may prevail against it for what greater fall can it have then by damnable Errors to make its Members all fall into Hell and in what manner can the Gates of Hell more prevail against it And yet we are sure by Gods Word that shall never happen Wherefore in this Church we imbrace most groundedly all things proposed by it to be believed Here you see our Judge Christs Church hath Gods warrant to warrant Her from bringing in any damnable Error by her Judgement All may therefore securely obey But that none can securely disobey her Judgement Christ also doth warrant us in the next Chapter but one for Matth. 18. v. 17. he saith Tell the Church and if he
will not hear the Church Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and Publican Here you see all Causes of greater Importance are to be brought to this Judge for if even private complaints are to be brought into her Tribunal and if for disobedience after her Judgement given of them a man be to be hold for a Publican or Heathen much more are enormiously hurtful crimes such as are the crimes of Heresie to be carried to her Tribunal and those who in so much more Importing matters disobey are also much more to be held for Publicans and Heathens And that no man may think that after this his condemnation he may stand well in his Interiour persisting still in the same judgement and doing so stand right in the sight of God it followeth Amen I say unto you Prelates of my Church VVhatsoever ye shall bind upon Earth shall also be bound in Heaven You see I have found a Judge so securely to be followed in his Judgement and so unsafely to be disobeyed that his Sentence given upon Earth is sure to be ratified in Heaven This also could not be true if this Judge were fallible in such prime causes as most concern the Church and all such causes are those which may bring in damnable Errors Conformably to this doctrine of the Church her being our Judge Saint Austin de Civit. l. 20.9 expounds to our purpose those words of the Apocalypse or Revelation cap. 20. ver 4. I saw Seats and they sate upon them and Judgement was given them It is not to be expounded of the last Judgement but of the Seats of Prelates and the Prelates themselves by which the Church is now governed are to be understood All this which I have said out of the New Testament you will the lesse wonder at if you Note that even in the Old Law it is said The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and they shall require the Law from his Mouth because he is the Angel of the Lord God of Hosts Mal 2. Note here a grosse corruption of the English Bible which readeth these words The Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth whereas the Originals speak clearly in the future Tense Here by the way I must tell you that though the Scripture were to be Judge yet your most corruptd English Scriptures cannot be allowed for Judge Whence it followeth that those who do understand onely English can judge of nothing by their Scripture And so they must trust their Ministers to the full as much even in this highest point as we do our Priests in any point But let us proceed You see first that I have found a way so direct that fools cannot erre by it for any man may ask the Priests of the Church what is the known Doctrine of the Church and then let him rest securely when he knoweth that Secondly you see I have found such a Judge as all true believers had for all their Controversies for more then two thousand years together before Moses did write the first Books of Scripture all which time you must needs make the Tradition of the Church the infallible Rule of Faith for here was no written Word of God upon which their Faith could be built and yet Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4. speaking of those who lived in those Ages before all Scripture saith They had the same Spirit of Faith And the reason is clear for the Word of God is the same whether it be revealed by the Pen or by the Tongue written or not written And what saith St. Irenaus l. 3. c. 4. if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures Must we not have followed that order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose Charges they left the Churches to be governed To this order of Tradition by the unwritten word many of those barbarous Nations do assent who have believed in Christ without any writing or Inke having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and keeping diligently the ancient Traditions So St. Irenaeus who you see holdeth manifestly unwritten Traditions of the Church to be a sufficient Ground of Faith It is most manifestly true which he saith that upon this ground the Faith of whole Nations have relyed This ground therefore is infallible all Nations Faith relying on this even two Thousand years and more before the first Scriptures were written and the Faith of many other Nations who since their writing have believed and do believe the true Faith For how many of them never did see the Scriptures at all or never did see them in a Language which they could understand Neither did the Apostles or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as they could all or the greater part understand They thought the Tradition of the Church a sufficient Rule of Faith for all which they could not do if this Rule were fallible We must therefore confesse it to be Infallible Thirdly I have not onely found a Judge so clearly pointing out the way that fools cannot erre by it but such a Judge as no exception can be taken against his sufficiency for no other Judge was in the Church for some Thousands of years amongst the most true Beleevers and afterwards amongst whole Nations Fourthly I have found a Judge to whom Christ hath given a certain Promise to teach no damnable error by which Doctrine the Gates of Hell should prevail against her Fiftly I have found a Judge whom All men are obliged I say obliged by Interiour Assent in point of Faith to obey under pain of being held here for Heathens or Publicans and looked upon as such by the Judgement of Heaven binding what the Church bindeth Sixtly I have found a living Judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time and who can hear Me and You and be heard by Me and You that neither I nor You can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we doubt we can propose our doubt and she will tell us clearly her meaning whereas the Bible can neither hear a Thousand new Controversies which arise daily nor be heard clearly to give any certain Sentence in them but onely say the same still which she said even before the Controversies began and about which Sentence of hers all the Controversie did arise neither doth the Bible give any such Judgement as will suffice to hold these and these men who teach these and these errors for Heathens and Publicans which the Church doth so clearly and so manifestly that they themselves cannot deny themselves to be condemned by the Church together with their Doctrine but all they can do is to raile against their Judge which the damned shall do against Christ their Judge I see no exception there can be made against this Judge Onely you will tell me that Infallibility is wholly necessary for the Judge of Faith which I
also confesse yet I also say that this Church of Christ must be confessed to be Infallible But withall I would have every one know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawful General Councel cannot erre for it is no necessary Article of Faith to believe that the Pope or head of the Church cannot erre when he defineth without a General Councel Now that this definition of a whole General Councel is Infallible ought not to seem strange to any Christian for who can think it strange that Christ for the secure direction of the first Christians whom the Apostles converted should give this Infallibility to all and every one of the Apostles and that he should regard so little the secure direction of all other Christians who were to be from the Apostles time to the end of the world that for their sakes for the secure direction of their Souls he would not give this Infallibility so much as to one Man no not to all the Prelats of Christianity assembled together with their head to define matters most necessary and in which all error would be most pernicious who I say could think this strange especially being this gift of Infallibility is given not for their private sakes to whom it is given but for the universal good and necessary direction concord and perpetual unity of the whole Church You must acknowledge that he gave Infallibility of Doctrine to all those who did write any small part of the Old or New Scripture He gave it to David though he was an Adulterer he gave it to Solomon who proved not only a most vicious Man in Life but who for his own person in point of Faith came to fall into Worshipping of Idols This you will not have thought strange but you will hold it Incredible that he should give this Infallibility not to one Man but the whole Church represented in a General Councel Let us passe on further yet and see how firmly this Infallibility is grounded I have above shewed how strongly it is grounded on those words of God promising a Holy way a way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it See here the third Number In the eight Number I have shewed that we cannot ground that Faith by which we believe the Sabbath to be changed to the Sunday upon Scripture but we must ground it upon the Tradition of the Church which if it be not Infallible we have no Infallible Ground at all for this point And in the ninth Number I have shewed the self-same to be about eating Blood or Chickens or any thing that is strangled In the 11 12 and 13. Number I have demonstrated that by the Scripture we cannot know which is true Scripture which is false which Books be Infallibly the Word of God which not for the Scripture hath not one Text in which it telleth us this and therefore for this Important point of Faith we can finde no other sure Ground then the Tradition of an Infallible Church for a fallible Tradition may deceive us In the 14. Number I have shewed that when Controversies arise as most and most Important Controversies do arise about the true meaning of the Scripture even after we have conferred all places together and looked upon the Original Languages the the Controversies still remain undecided and no Infallible way can be found to decide them by Scripture There is therefore no Infallible way to decide them if the decision and definition of the whole Church in a General Councel be not Infallible This is so clear that to the wonder of the world Luther himself in his Book of the Power of the Pope writeth thus We are not certain of any private Man that he hath the Revelation of the Father The Church alone it is of which it is not lawful to doubt So he In the 15. Number I have shewed that there be many points necessarily to be believed under pain of damnation which points are not at all set down in any clear Scripture For these points it is manifest that we can have no other ground then the Authority of the Church If this be not Infallible then we have onely fallible ground which cannot be a ground of Faith In the 16. Number I have confirmed the same Doctrine by the Authority of Saint Austin and Saint Chrysostome In the 17. Number I have proved this Doctrine clearly out of Gods Promise that he would build this his Church upon a Rock and that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it which the Gates of Hell might easily do if the Church could come to teach damnable errors carrying her and her Children into the Gates of Hell it self The same in the same place I have proved by Gods commanding us to Tell the Church and commanding us to hold all those who will not hear the Church as Publicans and Heathens and by making good in Heaven the Sentence of the Church given upon Earth which he would not do if the Church should have at any time failed in her definition and that in points damnably erroneous In the 18. Number I have alledged other Texts still proving the same In the 19. Number I have shewed that for two Thousand years together before the Scriptures were written the true believers had no other sure ground of their Faith but the Authority of the Church which if it had been fallible the very ground of their Faith had been groundlesse and none at all The first Believers also and many whole Nations had no other ground then the said Authority of the Church as there I have shewed out of Saint Irenaeus and it is clear of it self for they did not build their Faith on any Scriptures Thus far I have gone already in the proof of the Infallibility of the Church Now I go on with those words of Saint Paul 1 Tim. 3. v. 15. where the Church of the living God is called The Pillar and Ground of Truth May not Men rely securely upon the Pillar of Truth May they not ground themselves assuredly on the ground of Truth No ground being surer ground and more infallible then the ground of Truth it self Yea my Adversary having found a place in St. Irenaeus calling the Scripture the Foundation and Pillar of Faith doth infer that if it be so then it is the ground and cause of our faith If this consequence be strong which I deny not then is it yet a stronger that the Truth is no where surer grounded then upon the Pillar and Foundation of Truth But my Adversary would take this place of St. Paul from me because he saith This expression may very reasonably be referred not to the Church but to the mystery of Godlyness and so be an Hebrew form c. Surely he forgot that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew but in Greek and then again No Hebrew form in the world can make the sense he intends What can be
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
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
ground established the necessarinesse of an Infallible Judge I need go no further till this be made sure I need not have any thing to do with your assumption indeed if I may be so free a presumption Yet lest you should take it amisse or ill if I should say nothing to it by it selfe I shall not let it passe without some notice of it But what you say at first here that if we finde out this Judge we can never remain in any doubt for without all doubt we must stand to the judgement of this Judge what reasons soever our private judgement or discretion may suggest So you this spoyles all and this is an argument against you that which you say is little else then Contradictio in adjecto as they speak If we must submit our judgements to an Infallible Judge pretended whatsoever reasons of Scripture I mean we have to the contrary then there is no such Judge for it is impossible for us in our judgements to assent to that for which we see reasons of Scripture to the contrary Take Reason simply and so in matters of Faith it must quiescere as the School phrase is as a principle because the doctrine of Faith is supernatural in the judgement of Aquinat at the beginning of his Summs but take Reason as an Instrument for the finding out of the sense of Scripture and so what moments we finde in Scripture for any opinion we cannot sink in any determinations on Earth As far as the understanding sees appearance of Truth it doth necessarily leap and run to it and will not leave it for any Authority under Heaven and therefore while the reason of Authority is not so clearly drawn from the Word of God as the reason of his Opinion in his own judgement it cannot give up its assent And if we are by duty to go your way of absolute credence to the dictates of your Judge we must then if he saies Vices are Vertues say so too as your Cardinal Bellarmin determins in his 4. Book de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. And thus you again see whither your blind obedience will lead you even from darknesse to darknesse In the seventh Number you lay to our charge an agreement with all Hereticks that have risen up against the Church because we as all Protestants do hold that the Scripture is the onely Judge by which all doubts and differences and Controversies of Religion are to be determined with Infallible Authority To this Saint Austin answers l. de Trinit cap. 38. We also answer to this charge first as before that Hereticks have urged Authority too and therefore by your argument you must quit your way of the Authority of the Church or else grant us our way of Scripture notwithstanding Secondly doth it follow rationally that because the Hereticks have misapplyed Scripture therefore we should not rightly apply it If the Standard be made use of to ill purpose of measuring stoln commodities therefore shall not other measures be ruled hereby It is accidental to Scripture to be thus abused shall it therefore loose its proper priviledge because as Saint Peter saith some who are unlearned and unsetled wrest Scriptures to their destruction therefore those who are learned and setled may not improve it to their Salvation because Robbers make use of the light of the Sun for actions unrighteous and wicked therefore honest men may not use the Light for their lawful imployments Is this good reasoning You had surely raised your discourse to the height if you had told us that we must not urge Scripture because the Devil did urge it unto our Saviour Christ So one indeed concludes as if the Devil did not apprehend what kinde of argument our Saviour would own and what reject therefore did he not set upon him with Tradition of the Church as is noted Neither did Christ reply upon him with Tradition but with Scripture which is a better Argument that this is to be our Rule which we should be be ordered by Thirdly The Hereticks did not presse that which was true Scripture but either corrupted it as Tertullian observes in his praescriptions or took onely so much as was for their use or perverted the sense of it so that if Scripture doth consist in the sense they did not bring Scripture for their proof but that which is not Scripture Fourthly Why doth Bellarmine and others of your Writers so frequently endevour to uphold their Doctrines by Scripture if because the Hereticks use it we must not Neither do they plead Scripture by the Traditional sense of the Church but by their own Interpretations When Scripture seems to them to speak for them then they produce Scripture but when they are oppressed with clear testimonies against them then little respect is given thereunto Fifthly If Controversies are not to be ended by Scripture which the Hereticks plead then how are they to be ended by the judgement of the Church Yes you will say but how shall Hereticks know if they doubt what or which is the true Church it must be by the Scripture so that our last recourse must be to Scripture Again if Hereticks must be perswaded by the Church then are they led if not by their private judgements yet by private judgements of others For besides that the Church consists of private Men the consent of the whole if they could be certain of it being compared to Scripture in way of contradistinction hath it self by manner of private judgement All the publick power it hath it hath by God and Scripture then here again we must end Again how shall Hereticks know that all Controversies are to be ended by the Church they must know it either by their own judgements of discretion which you deny to us or by the Church What in its own cause or by Scripture so we must resolve our selves in Scripture analytically we must bottome there synthetically we must begin there Sixthly This practice of Hereticks if it hath reason to make us forsake Scripture hath it not reason also to make you retract your expressions of your self as towards Scripture that you do professe all reverence and all credit to be due to Scripture as the Infallible word of God insomuch that you are ready to give your lives in defence of any thing conteined herein Will you stand to your words If you will then must you believe that whatsoever is necessary is declared therein sufficiently For what saith the Scripture by Saint Paul Gal. 1.8 If I or an Angel from Heaven preach to you any other Doctrine besides what you have received let him be Anathema And what then becomes of your unwritten word on behalf whereof you wisely cry up the infallibility of the Church in points of Religion For as for the distinction of your men hereupon that the Text is to be understood of that which is against it not of that which is beside it is invalid for it is in the Text beside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
must prove that they were and ought to be infallibly determined by the Church upon necessity of salvation because you would conclude your postulate of the necessity of an infallible Judge Now then if those things were not infallibly determined the instances thereof are of no use to you And you may consider that we may in things of practice which in their nature are of free Observation as being neither commanded or forbidden by the Scripture and should follow the Church therefore to bring it to an issue Either this Poedobaptisme was Infallibly followed by the Church or not if infallibly it was so by the moments of Paedobaptisme in Scripture although not perspicuous If not infallibly yet might they follow the Church and should in this Case because if it had been free to them to have done so or not in regard of the thing yet should they have gone in the way of the Church when there was nothing to the contrary much more should they conform in this which had that reason in the Analogy of Scripture and therefore this Testimony of the Father need not move us wheresoever we find it for I cannot find it by your direction Give me some better direction to find the following of the Tradition of the Church to be the most true and inviolable Rule of Truth reduplicatively namely upon its own account and in things necessary then I shall say more or yield He holdeth therefore you say the Tradition of the Church so infallible that it may be a ground of Faith Here are two things to be said First that he holdeth so of Tradition which by other Testimonies is to be proved Since Secondly he doth not hold it therefore of Tradition since these words of Saint Austin doe not draw after them the nature of Tradition in your sence which doth not depend upon the written Word as this doth for the reason of it And you believe Saint Paul taught him so in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2.15 Hold the Traditions which you have been taught whether by word or by our Epistle To this we answer premising the state of the Question whether Doctrine of Faith not depending upon the word written do oblige Faith equally to Scripture Now we say that these Traditions might respect Order and Ceremony or History and so comes not within compass of the Question in regard of the matter Secondly Though it will not please Estius upon the place yet nothing hinders but that it might be meant of the same matter which was first preached then written and then should hold it or them as first preached then written and this is a second answer in the place doth come into our question in respect of the matter for the Syriack renders it Mandats Commandements which do not signifie formally matters of Faith Thirdly The Thessalonians might be sure that what they had from him by word was such as they should believe equally to what was written but so cannot we be of your Doctrines of Faith which you say are handed from Generation to Generation Make us as sure of them in regard of Divine Inspiration and communication to us then urge our Obedience equal And this will give you an account of Saint Chrysostome upon the place who meaneth no otherwise then that which they had from God by him whether in word or writing they should hold which they could beleeve we can not for such Traditions having nâ—t that certainty of them Read the whole of him upon that Text and also do not passe by the Observation of this modesty herein we may think it worthy of beleef namely the Tradition of the Church which whether he means it of things of Discipline and order wherein we deny not conformity to the Church we are not sure of but there come not up to our Question for they are not of Faith and do not equally oblige And hitherto now you have gone about to assure Christians of a necessity of an infallible Judge now in your 17. Paragr you will assume that the Catholique Church is the Judge Then the Roman to be the Catholique prudently The text you name for the Catholick Church is that of Saint Matthew in his 16 Chap. the 18 Verse I say unto thee thou art Peter that is to S. Peter by name thou art Peter that is thou art a rock and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it c. And now surely you are at your strong hold which you think cannot be undermined or stormed true if your application of it were as sure as it But we are not careful to answer you in this assault First we deny your interpretation of the name of Peter you interpret the Greek that is a rock it is denied the Greek word doth not ordinarily and not here signifie a rock And if you will not believe me take this argument Cephas signifieth a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Petrus signifieth as Cephas therefore a stone Both propositions you have proved as you may see in S. John 1.42 43. as in the Syriack Thou shalt be called Cephas that is a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Greek which is interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stone And because Cephas is known in Siriack to signifie a stone therefore the Syriack doth not add these words which is interpreted and that Petrus signifieth as Cephas you have there for Cephas is interpreted by Petrus therefore your interpretation is not right Secondly If you say as you did before that the Hebrew was the Original of Saint Matthew's Gospel then are you not nearly obliged to the Syriack which is but a dialect thereof nay likely the very Dialect of Hebrew wherein it was first written if not in Greek and then not onely can you not interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rock but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither and then you cannot render the following words as you do And upon this Rock c. For the words in the Syriack are letter for letter the same both the name of the Apostles and the word which you render a Rock are the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both and therefore if you will stand to the Syriack it will come to this Thou art a stone and upon this stone will I build my Church And this will have fair Correspondence with that of Saint Paul in the same Metaphor Ephes 2.20 Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone So that the priviledge of Saint Peter here was onely this to lay as it were the first stone in this Foundation Nay thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament more then once signifieth a stone Rom. 9. last it is synonymically joyned there with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned also to the same Metaphor in that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this must signifie a
formality of speech doth import a promise in the future not a duty in the Subjunctive yet the promise doth not include an impossibility of error no more then the promise made to your Church as you suppose doth exclude all error but that which is destructive Thirdly The future in the Hebrew doth not contradict a subjunctive in the interpretation when the scope bears it since the Hebrews as you may know have no proper Subjunctive And it is proper to the scope to understand it as of duty they should keep knowledge whereupon â—â—ey are charged for breach of duty therefore our Interpretation in this is more sound then your dispute upon it And therefore that which you say in your 19. Number that any man may ask the Priests of the Church what is the Known Doctrine of the Church then let him rest securely when he knowes that that is unreasonable because the Priests are not Infallible May he not rest more securely in Scripture for the Church in all things is not as before infallible the Scripture is in all which it proposeth but the Church you say is not in danger of taking in any damnative error Well but the Scriptures sets out none at all but all things are not determined in Scripture Well but all things are not determined in the Church but all things necessary are taught in the Church which may keep us from damnative error Well and are not all things necessary taught in the Scripture why then not to the Law and Testimony why to the Cistern when we may have it at the Fountain why not to the Scripture particularly when what Authority the Church hath it hath from the Scripture in general and why doth your Church take away from the people the use of Scripture and why may not we be informed as sufficiently by our Priests as you by yours notwithstanding this Text especially since we go by Scripture you by Tradition or humane definition And if the Priests of yours were Infallible can you say Infallibly that they will not deceive you How miserably then do you provide for the poor people when you would have them require at their mouth not the Law of God but the Doctrine of the Church That which comes on in the same Number about Tradition before Scripture was answered before it was written The Word in the Substance of it was before the Church which was begotten by it and when there is now as much need and as great certainty of Tradition as formerly then urge it And I thank you for Saint Irenaeus's Testimony I do not lye at catch but the most convincing dispute is by our Adversaries principles not the Fathers but yours as you apply them for we can make very good use of his words If the Scripture had not been left to us we should have had Tradition more certainly conveyed to us as the Gospel was before it was written and this confirmes for me what was said before but now I assume the Scripture is now left to us therefore is there no need of certain conveyance of Tradition to us Surely you have a minde to help us for your own good Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations you speak of did rely onely upon Tradition they might be commended to the doctrine of the Gospel by Tradition and then not believe it for the sake of Tradition for this is the state of the question Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten is of equal authority to Scripture Secondly If you say Salvation was written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost this may be meant to be done not onely beside Scripture but besides Tradition and thus was it done extraordinarily But why Thirdly Might not the Holy Spirit infuse Faith of the Gospel into those Nations by some of those who were Apostles or sent from them to Preach it and then the Tradition you speak of is the matter of the Gospel which is written and so it doth not appertain to the question of Traditions of proper name which you say are beside that which is written though not against it and then your discourse is fallacious from that which is the object of the Gospel delivered to that which is beside it delivered which ambiguity of the word Tradition if it doth deceive you yet doth it not consequently deceive me but if you mean Tradition here onely of the manner of communicating the matter of Scripture without writing then the former answer may satisfie you that Tradition was then more certain and they were more assured of it by the Spirit of God then we are now And also it might be to them as the Star to the Wise Men for leading them to Christ By the light of the Star they were guided to Christ but when they came to him they saw him not by the light of the Star but by the light of the Day so some might be directed to the Gospel by Tradition before they had the Scripture and then believed it by the light of Scripture You add also neither did the Apostles or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages as they could all or the greater part understand So you This is readily denyed for God did take care that the New Testament should for the most part of it at least be first written in Greek And the Greek you know in the notion of the New Testament is contradistinguished to the Jew because so many of the world besides the Jews were Greeks and the Greeks Language was the most common then and therefore saith Tully in his Oration for the Poet Archias Graeca per totum orbem leguntur And God by his gracious Providence hath taken care that the Scripture should be translated into divers languages as you may know that so several Nations might have it familiar to them in their own Tongue which must condemn your Church for not permitting of it ordinarily to the people in their own dialect and also doth conclude that Tradition is no Infallible provision for a rule of Faith for how shall the people undoubtedly know that the Traditions were clearly discerned true from them which were false and also that they were faithfully handed through so many Centuries to the present time And yet if so this would not be sufficient for your use unlesse you or others could finde these two points more one how to evade a Circle by proving the Traditions by the Church and the Church by the Traditions and the second this that those Traditions have Infallibly decided the differences betwixt us which the Antients did not professedly handle as having not provocations thereunto If any thing be touched by the by you may know the rule Aliud agentis parva autoritas In your 20. Number you make a recapitulation of what you think you have done and I think you have undone untill you come to Sixthly I have found a lawful Judge who can be informed of all Controversies
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
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
us to keep his Commandements 56. You go on as if I found fault with Scripture I only find fault with those who affirm Scripture to have been intended by God for an end to which I shew it never was intended Because if it had been intended by God to teach us clearly all things necessarie to salvation otherwise then by sending us to the Church and by bidding us keep our received Traditions it would have set the things down clearly and distinctly and not have left these points to be picked out one out of one book another out of another no man knoweth directly where yea divers books contained not so much as one of these points which you hold necessarie to salvation especially in plain and clear terms And those books which do contain such points do intermingle so many other lesse necessarie points or points of doubtful necessitie with those which are wholly necessarie without ever telling us of this lesse or greater necessitie that all the whole Bible must be very carefully and very attentively read over which is impossible because divers whole Books of the Bible are lost before a man can come to the infallible knowledge of such points as you will say are necessarie which points you say are but few and the Books of Scripture are many and divers more have been written and quite lost and how can we tell whether all these we have now contain all points necessarie For the most you pretend is that in the whole Canon all points necessarie were delivered we have not the whole Canon but diverse books of it have perished Therefore we have no assurance that the Scripture we have containeth all things necessarie The Scriptures we have make a book so big that the far greater part of the world taken up with so many necessarie affairs cannot in a very long space of time read over this Book with any part of that exactnesse which according to your own Principles must be required to find out which points be necessarie to salvation For to do this they must first read over the whole Canon and yet divers books of it are lost and not to be had how shall they read them Secondly to have assurance that they have read over the whole Canon they must read over such books as we hold to be part of the true Canon to see whether they be so or no and use such diligences as are necessarie for an infallible assurance They must also note most accurately all places which may perhaps clearly deliver a necessarie point when they shall have been conferred with other places which perhaps be at the other end of the Bible or may occur to me when I lesse observe any kind of connexion with what I read before Besides this for fear Translations which are only so farre Gods Word as they agree with the Original should be taken by me for Gods true Word I must consult with the Original and with the true Original of which I cannot get an undoubted copy infallibly secured from corruption Is it likely that God who hath promised us a Way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it would intend to lead us by a way having so many passages open to errour These difficulties shew that God did not intend this Book to be our onely guide His wisedome directs him to the best means to compasse his intention Even our ordinarie wisedom if we had an intention to set forth a writing to end all necessarie Controversies would direct us to set down plainly and clearly in one place all those few as you say points necessarie to be believed When God determined to set down all the Jewish Ceremonies you see how fully particularly and clearly he setteth them down in Leviticus Points of faith necessarie to salvation import incomparably more then points of meer Ceremonie If then God had intended a Book by which only he was resolved to deliver unto us all points necessary to salvation these points as you say being but few he would in some one part of these books have clearly set down these few points a thousand times more importing then the points of Ceremonies Many hold that the Epistles of Saint John were written after his Apocalyps and so by order of time that they were the very last part of the Canon And yet in the very last part of this my last part of the Canon Saint Iohn saith I had many things to write but I will not with inke and pen write them But I trust we shall see thee shortly and we shall speak face to to face No man can say that these many things which St. Iohn had to write were things unnecessarie wherfore many necessary things may not be set down in the Canon And yet the Canon is very compleat in order to its true end and also in order to the ending of all Controversies by sending us to the Church for full instruction as I have shewed And it is apparently false which you say that the Scripture doth give us everie particular point which is necessarie to be believed as I have shewed in this Chapter And whereas you adde secondly That the Scripture giveth also many points not necessary you mark not that the vast number of those points among which here and there we are not assured where the necessarie points are intermingled from the beginning of the Bible to the end is a thing which would make any man far from being fully assured that Gods intention was by this Book alone to decide all Controversies about points onely necessarie which might far more easily for our capacitie have been done in some one Chapter of some one of these Books 57. After this you urge that our Church hath not decided all necessary Controversies Sir Our Doctrine is that the Church can decide any point formerly revealed when any necessity shall require it or the declaration of this point concern our Salvation Salvation hath very securely been had without the decision of those points you speak of If circumstances happen that Salvation cannot be had without their decision they will then be decided If you acknowledge a real necessity to be at all times of the infallible knowledge of those points then by your own principles you are bound to say that they are plainly set down in Scripture And I am sure our Church hath determined that we are obliged to believe all Scripture with an undoubtful beliefe either you must say these points are not necessary and then all your arguments fall of themselves or else you must say these be plainly set down in Scripture and then we are by our Church obliged to believe them with divine faith I adde that our whole Church teacheth the definitions of Councils confirmed to be infallible Submit to this Judge appointed by God who did bid us hear the Church and you shall find her definitions not to leave you ignorant of what is necessary for you to know To cavil at her you will
private Priests are far more likely to teach them Gods law by teaching them what the Universal Church holds to be Gods Law then by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be Gods Law as you would have them do 11 Now to prove further the Church to be a competent judge guiding us no lesse securely then those many millions were guided who had an infallible faith and the same Spirit of faith with us as S. Paul said though their faith were grounded on the authority of no Scripture but wholy and intirely on the tradition of their infallible Church I urged that in those two thousand years and more before Moses did write the very first book of Scripture the true faith of all the true believers of those Ages depended in its infallibility upon their Churches being infallible in proposing the traditions she had received shall we allow infallibility to that Church and deny it to Christs Church shall we be worse provided for in so main a point in the law of grace then they were in the law of Nature what text of Scripture is there for this Then it was not written Hear the Church then it was not written that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her Nor that she was the Pillar and ground of truth that the spirit of truth abided with her then teaching her then all truth All this and far more then this as I shall shew in this chapter is written now of Christs Church And yet you will say we are not sufficiently certified of her infalliblity I pray tell me how then were they certified and infallibly certified of the infallibility of their Church How did Men then infallibly know that they were bound under pain of damnation to believe the tradition of that Church shew me then what you demanded of me lastly to shew that is shew the ground they had then to hold their Church infallible and the infallibility of the knowledge of it and infallibly what was the subject of this infallibility If you cannot shew that they could not then do it better then we now then refuse not to stand up to our Creed Your answer to so convincing an argument is most unsatisfactory and it would make a man think your intent were to plead against your self You say this was answered before it was written what was that answer It was that the word in substance of it was before the Church which was begotten by it to this you add that when there is now as much need and as great certainty of tradition as formerly then I may urge this argument so when you speak of the word of God which you say was before all writing and which begot the Church you must speak of the unwritten word This unwritten word is that very thing which we call tradition and indeed when you speak of such a word as must be sufficient for an exterior and an infallible direction for so many millions as were by it onely to be directed in the way of Salvation before any Scripture was written you must of necessity put this word outwardly expressed somewhere and expressed in such a manner as may be able to produce this effect of guiding whole millions in the way of Salvation by an infallible beliefe of what God hath said by that word Now I pray find me out any word of God any where existent before Scripture but in the Orall Tradition of the Church of those times You say Gods word revealed is the ground of all faith They then had faith therefore they then had Gods word revealed and revealed in a sufficient manner to ground divine faith But they only had Gods word revealed by Tradition Therefore Gods word revealed by tradition is a sufficient ground to ground divine faith By this unwritten word that is by this Tradition of the Church she from a small Church consisting of those very few to whom God by his own mouth did first of all speak or by his Angels grew to be a multitude of true believers And so the Church was begotten by Tradition upon which only this multitude that is the Church did judge most prudently that to be the true word of God which was by so powerfull a motive perswaded to be so That hence you may see that this very motive alone is a very sufficient inducement to receive the Verities recommended by it and to receive them with an infallible assent For this was the only inducement which we know the true believers to have had for those 2000. years and more which were before Moses did write the first book of Scripture And those Scriptures which were written from the law of Moses to the time of Christ were only kept among the Iewes and this time lasted two thousand yeares more during which long time many among the Gentiles as apeareth by Job and his friends had true divine faith with out any knowledg of the Scripture wholy unknown unto them this faith of theirs could have no other ground but Gods unwritten Word delivered to them by Tradition Therefore Gods unwritten Word delivered by Tradition only is a sufficient ground for infallible faith 12 And whereas you add That when there is as much need and as great certainty of Traditions as formerly then I may urge this argument I answer that the need or necessity of Traditions which you conceive to have been greater then now doth not make the Traditions more credible Those who have read very much in very many credible books of France have no need at all of any unwritten and orall tradition to make them believe there is such a countrey as France yet these men whom we will suppose to live at Dover doe as certainly know by unwritten or Orall Tradition of men daily coming from France bringing French passengers French commodities and as to those who never read one word concerning France not being able to read at all And those who are not able to read at all are not lesse assured by unwritten tradition that there is such a Kingdome as France because there be many books written of France and the French warrs with the English So though we have now the Scriptures written concerning most points of faith we are not lesse helped by tradition because there be such books extant And good Sir consider how great our necessities are of both these helps for even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions we have ever had with them a perpetuall succession of horrible divisions opening still wider and wider All commonly caused by the misinterpretation of the Scripture to which inconvenience they were not subject before all Scripture was written And therefore in this respect there is now after the writing of the Scripture a greater necessity then ever of Tradition both to assure us which books be the word of God which not which be the true which the false Copies of these books Where they be secure where corrupted And lastly which is the true sense of
them and which not For the sense even in necessary matters as I have shewed in the last Chapter is far from being evident Again Tradition doth of its own selfe naturally continue in its full force and vigour after the same things are wrirten as well as it did before as appears by what I just now said of the unwritten traditions by which many men only know France or Spain yea rather the increasing of it by being divulged in writing by most credible and manifold Authors doth very much strengthen this former tradition so far is it from taking any thing from it wherefore God must purposely by a miracle have infringed the course of Nature which no man can say he did if the former Traditions of the Church which before the writing of any Scripture did fully suffice alone to ground an infallible faith of such and such points should grow then to lose their sufficiency in order to the same effect when they were strengthned by so great an authority as that of the Sacred Writers was Hence is confuted the opinion of Protestants teaching the Authority of Traditions to have expired when the whole Canon of the Scripture was finished though not before For which they have no Scripture at all And if they go by reason they are to say Tradition was rather more strengthned yea if they will not say this yet consequently they should say that Tradition revived againe at least in part when some part of the Canon was lost yet you ought not to say that Tradition expired at the finishing of the Canon without it can be shewed that God did expresse this unto the Church so to undeceive those many thousands who had then reason to think that they might securely build their beliefe upon that upon which for about foure thousand yeares so many had untill that day built their faith When Saint Paul or any other Canonical writer preached first that doctrine which afterward he did write did the beliefe of those thousands which was at first sufficiently grounded upon his preaching come to lose its certainty or rather to gain a new degree of certainty when Saint Paul came afterward to write that they must hold the Traditions he had delivered to them 2 Thess 2. 1 Gal. 2. and that though an Angel should come and teach them contrary to what they had received by his Orall Tradition they should account him Anathema And again Have thou a form of sound words which thou hast heard of me 1. Tim. chap. 1. And again chap. 2. the things which thou hast heard he saith not read of me by many witnesses these commend to faithfull men which shall be fit to teach others also Would the writing of such Scriptures make them think any force taken from Traditions or rather make them conceive that Traditions are to be stood upon now more then ever before Again what wise man would put out one light costing him nothing because it will be shining of its own nature unlesse you will needs have it hidden because he hath now another light but so that even with both these lights many of his house-hold will still remain in darkness But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us I would know of you upon what account the Tradition of so Noble a Church as Christs Church is should be of lesse credit or certainty then the Tradition of that farre lesse Noble Church which was in the Law of Nature What meanes had they then given by God to secure their Tradition for the space of 4000. years which we want for the having secured our Traditions for these last 1654. yeares This meanes you can by no means assigne and therefore by all means you must grant the Traditions of this Nobler Church to have been as securely preserved from Corruption for these fewer yeares as those Traditions of a farre lesse Noble Church were preserved without corruption for above 4000 yeares Again the Tradition of Christs primitive Church before the Scriptures were written and sufficiently promulged which Tradition did by an infallible authority recommend all things was to be believed upon her sole authority and so was the Tradition of the first Church before there was any Scripture and therefore by good consequence she in the first place recōmended herauthority to be believed as divine and infallible and all the true believers believed it to be so which they could not have done without God had said so for all divine beliefe resteth upon the saying of God God therefore said by that his Church that her Traditions were infallible for her authority Now if God said this shall we upon your fallible discourse come to say the Church's Traditions are now no longer infallible though God said they were so and never yet expressed the ceasing of their infallibility By this you will see whether my Answer hath helped you or your reply helped me concerning what will follow out of St. Irenaeus 13. For this serves for making good what I said out of St. Irenaeus so farre as he is a witness which a profane author might have been of what hapned so near his times For as for his authority as he is a most grave Father of the Church and a most believing that to be true which he commended to writing as most true I doe not presse it against you Yet because here you thank St. Irenaeus for his testimony and make a shew as if it were for you though you cannot invent the means by which Tradition should have ben conveighed more certainly supposing there had been no Scripture I could not but observe how so soon as you have hugged him you cast him off again with small respect when you say Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely only upon Tradition They might be commended to the doctrine of the Gospel by Tradition and then not believe it for the sake of Tradition How flatly be these your words against St. Irenaeus who clearly declareth all himselfe to tell us upon what ground we must have been obliged to believe though the Apostles had never written any Scriptures at all What saith he if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures must we not have followed that order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose Charges they left the Church to be governed To this order of tradition by the unwritten word many barbarous Nations do assent who have believed in Christ without any writings keeping diligently the ancient Traditions What bringeth he this example of these Barbarous Nations for but to shew that we might with divine faith believe upon the sole account of that very tradition which the Apostles de facto left to those to whom they left the Churches goverment although the Apostles had never written at all at any time He therefore was none of those who would say with you neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations
for the dead all inscriptions of graves all wills and testaments all foundations of pious places will testifie this custome farre more strongly then that of Baptisme yea in no one countrey nor in any one age since Christ untill this last following age did ever any one man deny praying for the dead except Aerius counted for this his opinion an Heretick by St. Austin and by St. Epiphanius as you know very well Hence it is made evidently credible to any learned man that this Tradition of baptizing Infants and much more the Tradition of praying for the dead came to us from the Apostles it not being possible for all true believers in so many severall countries and so many severall ages to agree in the profession and daily practice of this truth without they had received these two things joyntly with their first faith else the novelty and the authors of such a novelty would in some time or some place have been made known to posterity for no one mans worke was it no nor no one hundred mens worke to bring all men every where to any such novelty with so unanimous and no where contradicted consent The Ignorant people will have the truth of these Traditions also made evidently credible unto them by the publick unanimous and universal consent of all antient men and all Ancient Monuments and also the like unanimous affirmation of all learned men of any standing who will all and every where profess themselves assured of it by their Learning and certain knowledge of those Traditions proved in the manner I now said This maketh the matter evidently credible to the ignorant Wherefore they should do most imprudently not to believe that these points came from the Apostles and then supposing that they came from them they should do a damnable sin not to believe them Can any rationall man desire a more rational proceeding How many true believers commended in Scripture cannot give so prudent a reason for what they believed How we proceeding thus escape clearly all Circle I told you the last Chapter Numb 31.32 Now as you must grant that our Church submitted unto as infallible presently by her authority decides all controversies so her Traditions once acknowledged as infallible will decide the points questioned The Scripture never so clear can never decide any one controversie untill it be first acknowledged Thus you see the two things which you here desired to see 17. After this I passed to another quality which the Church hath and the Bible hath not though it be a quality primely necessary to decide all controversies whence it appeareth that God intended not the Bible but the Church to be our judge This quality is that the Church is a living judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time and who can heare me and you and be heard by me you so manifestly that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we do doubt we can propose our doubts and she will explicate her meaning Such a living judge as this we must have to put effectually an End to all Controversies that can arise And as for the Bible I have shewed that it doth not decide all points necessary to Salvation the Bible heareth not new Controversies arising as I prove by this clear example An Arrian staâ—â—eth up as really he did and saith that these words of the Scripture These three are one are words added by us to the true Scripture This Controversie and a thousand such like the Bible heareth not the Bible judgeth not for there is not a word of it in all the Bible And though you say you can see true Scripture by its light you shall never get any man to believe that you your selfe do really believe that you see every verse in Scripture by its light No light appeareth so dimm as these words appear to man Three are one Yet besides this light you who reject Church Tradition as fallible you I say have left you no other infallible ground nor any infallible meanes to convince the Arrian untill you hold the Church infallible All other use which you say you make of the Church sufficeth not to ground an infallible assent for when all comes to all you make any private man and consequently every Arrian Cobler as I shewed the last Court of Judicature in giving the finall sentence on which all depends For he must be the last judge who after the Churches judgement must give sentence that she hath or hath not judged against Scripture That you may see my argument is not peccant I will frame both the Premisses and the Conclusion thus Faith being an infallible assent Controversies concerning faith cannot be determined so as to end then effectually but by an infallible living judge who can heare you and me and be heard by you and me But no other then the Church can with any ground be held to be this living judge Therefore She must be held to be this judge I doe not without Reason put in my Premisses the terme of infallible for faith being an infallible assent must needs require an infallible authority to rest upon This Authority she must find in all points to which she is bound to give this assent But she is bound to give this assent to diverse points not proposed clearly in Scripture as I shewed the last Chapter Therefore she is bound to give this assent to diverse of those points onely because they are proposed by the Church to which she could not possibly be bound to give an infallible assent without due assurance of her infallibility 48 You object that the Church Traditions cannot hear you and me I answer that it is the Church who proposeth these Traditions and not the Traditions which are our judge you ask me whither an Heretike be not condemned by himselfe as Saint Paul saith and you interpret his saying so that he must needs be condemned by himselfe for no other reason but because he had in him the principles of the word of God which he gain-said by his contrary error and so he was condemned thereby and therefore that can Judge Sir he is not an Heretike but an infidel who is told by his own Conscience that he gain-saith the Scripture All christians are readier to die then to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture When St. Paul writ those words the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written and until the whole Canon was written your own Doctors grant the Church to have ben the infallible judge of Controversies And I wonder you should say the Church at the writing of this by St. Paul was not sufficiently formed which the same St. Paul testifieth to have been formed before his conversion accusing himselfe for having above measure persecuted the Church of God And before his conversion the Number of the disciples was multiplied Act. 6. yea Act. 8. Simon Magus was turned Heretick before St. Paul was turned
Christian or any word of the new Scripture was writen The meaning of St. Paul is that an Heretick might if he would clearly see his private doctrine to be opposite to the known publick Doctrine of the Church which Church then shined with the glory of infinite Miracles stupendious conversions and most eminent Sanctity and was then formed most completely with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith Yea you will say she was then more completely furnished to that end then ever she was since that time 49. Now because your cheif exception against the Churches being our judge is that you hold her not infallible besides all the proofs I have already brought of her infallibility I shall now add divers more But in the first place I must a little more fully tell you what we understand by the name of the Church He who is a seeker of his Religion must first believe the Universal Church diffused to be furnished by God with true infallible meanes to direct us securely in all doubts of faith wherefore he most prudently judgeth himselfe bound to joyne himselfe to her in faith being convinced that she directed most securely in faith Being thus also a seeker resolved to ioyne to these true believers When he proceedeth further to take a particular account in whom this infallible meanes given to the Church Universal of directing all securely in matters of faith doth consist he will readily find that it doth not consist in all the members of the Universal Church for Children and women be of the Church and yet their Vote in no mans opinion is required to the deciding any controversie in faith the Laiety also hath no decisive Voice in those points nor every inferiour Clergy man but only such as are Prelates Overseers and Governors over the rest So that in fine this infallible direction is Unanimously affirmed by us all to be undoubtedly settled upon the authority of the prime Pastors Prelats of the Church assembled together in a lawfull generall Councell with their cheife Pastor and Head the Bishop of Rome Against a thing so easily to be understood you cry out aloud of strange intricatenesse and inextricable proceedings And yet I think most clowns of this Land did easily understand what was meant by a decree of the Kingdome to the which the consent of King and Kingdome assembled in Parliament as the custome was for many years together was required Now what more difficulty is there to know what we meane by a decree or Definition of the Church The kingdome representative was the king and the Parliament The Church representative is the cheife Bishop with the full Assembly of the other Bishops in a lawful Council the Decrees and definitions of which assembly be the decrees and definition of the Church In a thing so cleare you labour your uttermost to raise a thick mist 50. First you obiect who can be certain by a divine faith of the lawfulnes and Regularity of a Pope in his first creation I answer that when I speake of a Pope defining in a lawfull Councel as I do now speak I speak of such a Pope to whom the Church submitted in calling the Councel and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful head to preside in the Councel These very acts supply all defects in his election and do make it evidently credible that he is the true head who thus admitted defined with the Councel as their acknowledged head Secondly you ask when there was Pope against Pope who of the people could distinguish the right Pope I answer that he shall ever be esteemed the right Pope to whom the Prelates of the Church shall unanimously obey when he calleth them to meet in a general Councel and in this Councel to preside over them To to have two such Popes as these are at one time is impossible And this is the only time in which a Pope defineth with a lawful Councel What you say of Popes not defining in such a Councel is not our Case put me a Pope defining with a lawful Councel and then prove him fallible if you can Whether the Popes definitions out of a Councel be fallible or infallible maketh nothing to this purpose Only this is evident if they be infallible out of a Councel they be infallible in a Councel Thirdly you think that no Controversies can in our opinion be decided when there is a doubt who is true Pope And you ask who is then to call a Councel And when the Councel is called you think us to think that this Councel can define nothing without a Pope I doubt not Sir but you have found a clear answer to all this in Bellarm lib. 2. de Concilis Chap. 19. that although a Councel without a Pope cannot define any article of faith yet in time of schisme it can judge which is true Pope and provide the Church of a true Pastor if she had none who thus provided by the Councels authority may dissolve the Councel if he pleaseth or if he please to have them remaine assembled they remaine so now by his authority and can define as well as other Councels called by the Pope In that meeting in which the Pope was to be chosen or declared the undoubted Pope the Prelats of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves Fourthly you ask how we can by divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulnes and generality of Councels for Councels have been called by Emperours not by Popes Sir your Church which never had nor shall have generall Councel is to seeke in all things belonging to them Our Church almost in every age since Constantine hath been visibly assembled in general Councels and by perpetual practice hath been sufficiently informed to deliver by the assistance of the Holy Ghost all that she hath received from her ancestors to be essential to a true Councel and to deliver this point infallibly To your obiection in order I answer first That it is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institution by which either Emperours be assured to be still found in the world or that when they have that dignity they be by divine institution invested with a power to call Councels We seek for this divine Institution This we will not admit until it can be shewed in Scripture or Tradition the fact of calling sheweth not divine Institution Secondly as for the Prelates of the Church we can shew divine Institution Act. 20.28 Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock to feed or govern the Church of God And 4. Epho Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ that henceforth we may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine c. Thirdly The Emperour is not by divine Institution Lord of the Christian world No nor of any considerable part
of it Wherefore seeing that a motive power is no motive power any further then it can or ought to be able to motive the Emperiall power which cannot move further then it reigneth nor ought not to move further cannot consequently command any further then his territory at the uttermost The power of the cheife Pastor of the Universal Church is coextended to the Universal Church All Bishops of the Universal being to be moved must be moved by such a power as this is If Emperours called councils it was not by an Ecclesiastical calling such an one as the Pope called them by at the very selfe same time but the Emperours calling was only political proceeding from a temporal power subserving to the Ecclesiastical and not able to force them by censure in case of refusing to come as the Ecclesiastical power could which power implored the Emperiall assistance to concurre with her only for the more effectual excution Perhaps somtimes Emperours might venture to call dependently of the ratification of the supreme Pastor which they presumed would be assuredly obtained in so just necessities as there seemed to presse for a speedy meeting If Emperors were present in Councels it was only by their presence and good countenance to honor encourage and further the proceedings of the Councel and to passe their Vote in points of beliefe You add something else now but it comes again presently Fifthly you object How shall we know that every one of the Councel hath a free election to it and a free decisive Vote in it I answer the freedome of every mans calling is made evidently credible by the publick sūmons sent through the whole Christian world obeyed by the same without any pertinatious opposition and the answerable publick apperance from all parts of the world every one exhibiting the publickely authenticated testimony of his election and confirmation If any man be excluded he may without he will renounce his right be heard in the Councel which being a publick hearing the matter cannot but be known Many yet never were nor can be thus injured without making their injury notorious by publik protestations and such lik remedies alwayes used against unjust exclusion or hinderance of liberty in Voting If the Councel be known notoriously to use such procedings we are not to acknowledg it for a lawfull Councel Again as private mens proceedings are not to be judgeed bad unless they can be proved to be so much lesse ought the proceedings of the Church representative to be judged bad without sufficient proof of the contrary And when such evident and notorious ill proceedings are not apparent nothing can be solidly objected against the lawfulness of the Councel And therefore it being to be admitted as a lawfull Councel it belongeth to the Holy Ghost to provide that their difinitions be not prejudiciall to the Church put under his protection and direction You only look what the inward nature of humane malice might act but you should also look to the extrinsical over-ruling providence promised by God against humane malice and weakness This is that which maketh all these factions and bandings and domineering self interest never to be effectually destructive of that secure direction promised by God to his Church Though hell gates should be set wide open they should not prevaile against her Sixthly you ask how shall ignorant people be divinely perswaded that the Councel is general I answer the publick Summons to the Councel sent through the Christian world The Publick appearance of Prelats made upon these summons from all parts of the world Their publick sitting publick subscribing publick divulging their decrees and definitions acknowledged truly to be theirs by all present denied by no man to be theirs with the least shew of probability no more then such an Act is denied to be the Act of such a Parliament All these motives I say maketh it evidently credible to the ignorant and to the learned that this is the true definition of the Church Now this being evidently credible to be her definition and I believing by divine faith all her definitions to be true I also believe this definition amongst the rest to be true It is a great signe you are ill furnished with strong arguments when you would perswade us that in things so easy to be known there be such insuperable difficulties The Councel of Trents definitions concerning faith were never opposed by France though some things ordained for practice seemed lesse sutable to the particular state of that Kingdome yet this difficulty was at last removed Seventhly you ask how many Bishops in the Trent Councel were furnished with a title to over-power the rest for the Popes ends I pray Sir tell me how many But tell me by credible witnesses such as are their own subscriptions who can assure me of this truth And when you have told me this give me leave to aske what one of them was as much as suspected to be of a faith different from the rest If they differed not in faith from the rest how then can the Pope be suspected to have acted against faith by making such Bishops Again doth the making of such Bishops make the holy Ghost unable to order things so in the councel that nothing shall happen destructive of the secure direction undertaken to be afforded for ever by him Saul shall sooner turn a Prophet and Caiphas shall prophecie not knowing what he doth before the spirit of truth sent to teach the Church all truth shall faile in his duty Eightly you ask how the Church was provided for when for so many yeares there was no Pope defining with a Councel This time you mean was the first three hundred years after Christ when for persecution no Council could be gathered All this time the known doctrine of the Apostles remained so fresh and so notorious by the Tradition of the Church diffused and there remained also so Universal a respect and obedience to the cheife Bishop of the Church notoriously known to be the upholder of true doctrine that the Church wanted not meanes to decide Controversies as farre as the necessity of those times required whence the Quartodecimani although they opposed nothing set down clearly in Scripture were Iudged Heretikes for opposing the doctrine of the first Church made evidently known by fresh Tradition Now as the Church could want Councils for so many years so it could want Councils for the short space of schism For the necessity of new declarations it not so frequent at least in any high degree of necessity calling for instant remedy and a reme-of this nature only Scripture alone you say will remedy this necessity We besides scripture have alwayes at hand the many definitions of former Councils and the known Traditions of the Church which alone served Gods Church in those two thousand yeares before Scripture and for two thousand yeares more served the faithful amongst the Gentiles who had not the Scriptures which remained almost solely and alone
which is hard to affirme since we cannot see that there is any such necessity for such assistance And by those words such assistance Your last reply sheweth that you meane assistance extended to Infallibility Sir stand to Scripture and shew out of the Text that he promiseth to be with them securing them from all error in the first age and he promiseth not so much for the second or third age Against your reasons we have our reasons bring against my illimited text another text teaching clearly that my Text ought to be limited to a smaller assistance in other ages then was here promised for the first As for the necessity of the people which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infallibility it was greater in ages remoter from Christ you ask why then be our traditions now equally infallible to those of these times I answer that as it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles was crucified did rise again then it was presently after these things happened yet all these things be as infallibily true now as they were then and as infallilible so I say of Traditions which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty But to go on What if there be no such necessity of such assistance for other ages what Text have you to prove that God must needs give no more then is necessary and cannot promise more and give what he promiseth I know you will say this infallibility in ages after the Scripture was not necessary because the Scriptures alone would serve to decide all controversies Sir did not the Church alone serve to decide all Controversies before the Scripture was written Yes Why then was Scripture thought necessary by you even for this end for which the Church was well provided before Again the old Scripture did it not testifie as much as was necessary that Jesus Christ was the true Messias Yes To what end then was Saint John Baptist sent to testifie this To what end a voyce sent from Heaven to testifie this To what end so many Miracles wrought to testifie this To what end did Christ and his Apostles still further testifie this Mark here how false your judgement is in thinking God will promise just what is necessary and no more Sir in Ages after the first when the Church should grow from a Grain of Mustard-seed to be a Tree of vast extent in such a vast compasse and in progresse of many Ages a world of doubts would rise which Bookes were Scripture which not Which corrupted Scripture which not Which was the undoubted sense of the uncorrupted Scripture which not Why might not Christ for any thing you know by Scripture think this a sufficient Reason to promise an assistance extended to infallibility for other Ages of the Church as well as for the first age Will an authority so assisted to testifie all this infallibly be lesse necessary then so many Authorities to Testifie that Jesus Christ was the true Messias after it was infallibly Testified by true Scripture And all these Testimonies were given to the Jewes as ill as they were disposed How then can you say of the Church of Christ that she for want of this Disposition was deprived of this Assistance in all Ages but the first VVhat you adde of Traditions hath been already Answered See also Number Twelve But what you adde of Scripture having still the same certaintie is apparently false speaking as you speake in Order to assure us For you your selfe confesse that divers Bookes of Scripture as the Apocalyps c. are now held certain which were not held so before Again many and a good many bookes of Scripture are quite lost How know you by Scripture only that no necessary point for practice or beliefe contained in those bookes only did not perish with the bookes themselves And as for the bookes we have you see how uncertain we remain about the true sense of them in highest points Then they had the Apostles themselves or the known Disciples of the Apostles to tell them the meaning of these words This is my Body is this so really or figuratively only These words Baptize all Nations do or do not include Infants To be a Priest or a Bishop was to have power to sacrifice to absolve or was it not Now times make these held for uncertainties whereas by and by you admit that by this promise of Christ the Church is secure from damnable error though not from all simple errors for then no body should be left for God to be withal you admit that which will destroy quite what you said before For before you said Heresie consisted in opposition to clear Scripture whence all those must needs be Hereticks who opposed clear Scripture Therefore all those who held these prime points in which you and we differ with us against you were Hereticks for they held these points which as you say are against clear Scripture But by your own confession Christ had no visible Church baptizing teaching all Nations c. but those who held these prime points in which we and you differ wherefore we must confesse that Christ was with these Opposers of evident Scripture or else you cannot shew with what Members of the Church he was for all these last ages preceding the Reformation Let us go on 30. What kind of assistance Christ promised may be gathered behold a fifth Text out of several words in the 14. chapter of Saint John there verse 15. he saith I will pray the Father and he shall give another Comforter that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive And verse 27. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things and suggest unto you all things whatsoever I shall say unto you And chap. 16. ver 12. I have yet many things to say unto you How be it when the spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth I aske now according to these Texts How long is this spirit of Truth to abide with them in their successours For ever saith the Text. Shall he also secure those with whom he for ever abideth from all errour He will guide you into all Truth saith the Text. Give me then leave lesse to regard what you say to the contrary Where there is all Truth there is no errour If you answer there is no Fundamental errour I Reply that all Truth excludes all errour either in points Fundamental or not Fundamental And being you cannot assuredly tell me which points be Fundamental which not which destructive of salvation which not which be curable which are not you must grant me that she is to be believed in all points And fear not to believe her She will guide you into all Truth Therfore you may securely follow her in all herwaies This promise of Christ made equally to the Apostles and
to you is not bound to so much Fourthly whereas you say They so will make him wise unto salvation and to continue still assured of the doctrine of the Church and never to contradict that Do not you see that you add to Paul in the Predicate for S. Paul saies they are able to make him wise unto salvation and you say so they are able to make him wise to salvation and to continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church and not to contradict the Church who is it that wrests Scripture now Do not you draw it to your own use no you will say it is all one to make us wise unto salvation and to make us continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church and not to contradict the Church Is it then all who have not contradicted the Church are saved none that have contradicted the Church are saved The former you will not say the later you cannot prove Pope Vigilius contradicted the Church in the 5. Gen. Council about the three Chapters was he damned Fifthly you say the Scriptures so understood would make him wise unto salvation and to continue in the doctrine of the Church How do you understand it copulatively or disjunctively Copulatively that the Scriptures and the orall traditions would make him wise unto salvation and to continue in the doctrine of the Church or disjunctively that the Scriptures would make him wise unto salvation and the traditions to continue in the doctrine of the Church If disjunctively then we may be wise unto salvation and yet not continue in the doctrine of the Church to wit by the Scriptures If we cannot have salvation without continuing in the Church then prove your Church to be as infalible to us as the Doctors of the Church were to Timothy until that time you will be thought to beg the question So to end this answer we note here that you take special care of the Church It seems by your stickling about the Church that what S. Austin said in his de Civitate Dei concerning Rome-Heathen is also true by you of Rome-Christian Et major cura unius Romae quam totius Coeli And there is more care had of one Rome than all Heaven You go on Thirdly you say You confess 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 You say yes but I also say that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in Scripture So then it seems you come downe from your former universality that whatsoever we do believe we must believe upon the proposals of the Church as the formal cause and motive thereof and why then do you not allow the people the use of the Bible as in order to those things which are plainly delivered So that by this concession you open the way to contradict your own practice But you would shut it again by saying that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in it Be sure you take heed of this that you do not grant this for why then should all fly to the Church for infalible directions in way of supply well Are they not delivered or not plainly which speak your mind If not delivered then surely not plainly for of that which is not there are no affections as the Rule is but they may be delivered and yet not plainly Come out of the clouds and do not make a noise but lighten us If not delivered think upon the Argument you know well If many things not necessary are plainly delivered in Scripture then much rather all things necessary If delivered and not plainly then plainly not delivered for if they be delivered they are delivered for our use as a Rule of faith and action and how are they a Rule if they be not sufficiently plain for then we must have another Rule for the understanding of this Rule And also think upon the former Argument which proceeds upon your own distinction that the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation but not every one If Timothy then much more others because more is required as you say to a Minister in point of belief than to others But you would prove what you say S. Peter saith that many to their perdition did misunderstand some hard places of S. Paul so that mis-interpretation of hard places may be the cause of perdition Ans First you will excuse us if we note that the danger they were in was not by misunderstanding but by wresting of those places You know the Greek is as before was said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Syriack renders it perverting depraving and so also your Translation of Rhemes depraving This is not so much an intellectual error as a moral fault and the danger is by the later Secondly Here 's but some things hard to be understood in S. Paul's Epistles not all not many and from hence you cannot argue that all things therefore in S. Paul's Epistles and much lesse in the whole Scripture are hard to be understood If you syllogize so you proceed a particulari a dicto secundum quid Thirdly the perverting and depraving doth more immediately depend upon their being unstable than ignorant Therefore cannot you impute that to simple ignorance which at least partly belongs to another cause Fourthly how prove you that those things which were hard to be understood were of those things which are necessary to salvation If you say so it lies upon you to prove it if they were not such then this text is not pertinent Fifthly it is to their own destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then it seems hereby they had the liberty to read those Epistles and why should you therefore hinder the people from the use of Scripture since they run the danger of their own destruction by wresting them And peruse your own Estius upon the place who doth ingenuously note that it is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as referring to the Epistle as some copies he said would have it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referring to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which respects the time of Christs coming although afterwards Estius would extend them to the point of justification by faith Fourthly you object heresie and lewd life to some in whom you say we invested infallibility If I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresie and bad life besides giving all scope to interpret the Scriptures as we judge fit c. unto but to prevent Ans But do you remember what occasion I had to object this to you by way of recrimination you charged us by the judgement of your learned Divines that the free use of the Scripture would be it upon which the peoples manners would grow worse and worse And to this I said how comes it then to passe that some in whom you vested
that time infallible which yet we grant not a possibilitie of it to be infallible still It doth not inferre an actuall infallibilitie still Because God did so then therefore he did so after the word was written is as good an Argument as this because God made an extroardinary light for the time before the Sun was created therefore we must not now be directed by the light of the Sun As if because God did sufficiently rule his Church without general Councils for the first three hundred yeares therefore we should not make use of Councils now And then we say secondly we must not compare the two thousand yeares before any word was written but onely with the time of the Church when the Gospel was not written as for fortie years after Christ untill the Canon was finished and so it bears some proportion but it is not to be compared with the other times of the Church after the finishing of the Canon For then the word was to be the ordinary standing rule without Prophets or Apostles Thirdly was there any thing necessary consigned by tradition to the Church which was not put into writing This cannot be said because then God should have provided for his Church worse afterwards by writing And if it be said that the writing of the word doth not exclude the word not written which is tradition let them tell me why when all was in tradition before somewhat was put into writing and somewhat left in the way of tradition And then also let them tell me how that of our Saviour should be true St. John the fifth 39. Search the Scriptures for in them you think to have eternall life and they are they which testifie of me if any thing necessary were left in tradition how could they have eternall life in the Scriptures So then since all that was necessary was committed to writing why then was not that whereby the Church was ruled for forty years before the Canon was finished written also as well as before and then your tradition which you contradistinguish to Scripture is evacuated Or let me know why we may not as well deny the Roman traditions in point of faith after the finishing of the Canon as our Saviour did the traditions of the Pharises after their Canon was finished And why then should we not apply to them that of our Saviour to the Jews St. Mat. 15.9 In vaine do they worship me teaching for Doctrine the traditions of men Might not the Pharisees as well have put their traditions into their Mishna which as the tradition is was delivered by word of mouth from God to Moses from Moses to Joshuah from Joshuah to the seventie from them to the Church And fourthly my Adversary speakes this in favour of Generall Councils does he not If he does not his discourse doth not well cohere if he does he does not consider that for the two thousand yeares there was no generall Council nor for the first forty of the Christian Church Nor much for the first three hundred years And what consequence can be then drawn from his words against me for my deniall of being obliged absolutely to Councils If the Church were infallible even without Councils it would contradict me who say that the Church is not infallible even by Councils but since he sayes now the Church is infallible by Councils if it were infallible without Councils it would contradict him who says it is infallible in and by Councils because he placeth the infallibilitie in Councils so as that he will not stand to any infallibilitie of the Church without them Num. 7. In the seventh Number he doth indeavour to free me from the fear of hypocrisie in differing by an outward act from our inward act of belief But his indeavour is not sufficient To differ by my outward act of subscribing from my inward act of belief is hypocrisie but if I subscribe to that which I do not assent unto as true I must differ by my outward act from my inward act and therefore will it be hypocrisie To the assumption he would now give me satisfaction by perswading me that my inward act of assent may well go along with my outward act of subscribing His reason is this for any wise man may inwardly perswade himself that 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 wisdome that so grave a judgement of a whole Council is far more likely to see the truth than my private judgement and therefore rather to be interiourly imbraced Ans And is this all he can say to move me to change my opinion First he seems to suppose that we cannot see sufficient reason in all the determinations of a Council and so far he speaks ingenuously because it is a prejudice against himself Secondly there are so many doubts of a free generall Council about the morall existence of it that I had need of some Divine faith to believe that such or such is a free Generall Council And that there may be such scruples of such a Council he himself afterwards gives me intimation of Thirdly all this I can give you the free use of for it will do me no harme The discourse is peccant upon the ignorance of the Elench for this is in terms reconcilable to our cause yea and also almost all that follows to the end of the number for they do not prove a captivating of the soul into the obedience of faith as the Apostle speaketh but at most but a disposing of the mind of the person against opposition As you do conclude you conclude above your premisses as you should conclude from your premisses before you can conclude nothing against me For fourthly all that is said there makes no more than a probability of that to be right which is defined by the Council For put case it seems so to all in a generalitie or to most or to the wisest and of them to all or most of the wiser of them this is but probable according to Aristotle's account And then I will deny it that every Council is so qualified If it were this probabilitie makes but a strong opinion but not faith And therefore the Romanist doth unadvisedly urge necessity of faith upon grounds infallible before they can give us grounds infallible And therefore fifthly as for his Dilemma it will not take It is this Either the places against the definitions of the Council are clear or not if not they are more likely to hit upon the truth than I am if clear and evident then it is an evident and clear folly in me to thinke that so wise an Assembly should have so universall a blindnesse as that none of them should be able to discover that which is cleare and evident even to my short sight alas how far comes this short of infallible satisfaction And
he saies we must resolve our faith in the authority of a Council and if it hath defined that the sense how came they to have authority to define this to be the sense of the place If not clear to this purpose how came they to divine infallibly this sense for the Scripture according to them did not appear to have this sense without a Council then who gave authority to the first Council to give this infallibly to be the sense If clear then have we no such necessity of an infallible Judge for umpiring of litigant senses Thirdly Tell it to the Church ex vi authoritatis as to teach not ex vi infallibilitatis in teaching in regard of authority as to persons not infallibility as to truth Representatively in the office not absolutely in the matter We are to hear them as authorized to teach but not simply to believe them as if they were assisted not to err He that is appointed by Christ and doth say that which is false is not to be believed because if he saies that which is true it is not to be accounted true because he saies so but he is to be accounted as to speak true because it is so yea they may know that that text was applied by Christ as to censure in points of trespasse not to obedience in points of faith Not that Scripture alone by her self endeth all our differences c. Ans Who ever said so Who is his Adversary It were easie to have the victory without an Adversary if possible No Nor the Church alone by her self But we say also the Scripture doth not formally end any as they would have a living Judge and yet is not deficient in necessaries for by proposing plainly what is necessary it concludes necessarily against the necessitie of a living Judge infallible What is necessary more than to believe that which is necessary And therefore no need of traditions and what more plain than that there is no need of an infallible Judge as to salvation since what is necessary is plainly delivered in Scripture It is sufficient in the matter for necessaries and it is clear enough in the manner as to points of faith understood signanter And would we be ruled by Scripture there would be fewer Controversies in the Church and of the Church And were not their Church a party for it self it would give all to Scripture The interess of the Church hath brought in traditions not for salvation but for its authority And the Scripture must not clearly have delivered all points necessary because then what reputation would be given to the authority and magnificence of the Church But we are invited much to the third chap. and expectation is raised wherein he saies when I shall have fully set down the state of the question you shall find all that you add in this place presently answered Ans This he sayes should be done before it be said If he will prove that we must err in point of salvation without obedience to their judge If he will prove that all error is damnative and if he can prove that their Church or the Church hath not erred yea cannot err then we will excuse him for repetitions in the third chap. for he cannot come off handsomely with answering in a third chap. what was said in a former more fully unlesse he saies much more to what is said than what he hath yet said But we do not prejudice his Judge CHAP. III Shewing that since Scripture alone doth sufficiently propose all things necessary to salvation there is no need of a living Judge infallible HEre he saies at first Num. 1. You deliver your opinion in your answer to my third Num. p. 12. thus And then he tels me my opinion of which he says no proof was given by you untill you came to this present place For proof he hath had as much as could reasonably be required and more I suppose than he desired But I was to follow him and therefore he was not to accuse me And he might then have begun with the proof if he would have made short work He then prepares himself to reinforce the combate And therefore he saies And first I will take leave to state this question a little more fully and distinctly Ans He useth his own right if he will state the question more fully and distinctly and it is right to do so All good discourse begins with a definition and all regular disputes with the state of the question And it will be a favor to me if he does it well for we shall have done the sooner And so he ends his first number Your assertion then is Num. 2. that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Ans Yes this is my assertion And I am not ashamed of it yet for it is not mine alone but the Scriptur's and St. Austin's and others as he hath heard before In this assertion there be two things which needfull and distinct declaration the first is to declare these words necessary to salvation the second to declare those words plainly set down Ans Content let him be as good as his word onely let him take care he doth not as some he knew confound that which is to be distinguished and distinguish that which is to be confounded So let him turn his answering to what I said against his assertion into an opposition of mine And first concerning those words necessary to salvation they must of necessity be understood so that all things are plainly set down in Scripture which are necessary first to the universall Church as it is a Community Secondly all things necessary to all states and degrees that must needs be in this Community Thirdly all things necessary to every person bound to be of this Community Ans This way he thought to destroy my assertion as Mr. Cressy does to destroy the assertion of Mr. Chillingworth but it will not do For here is he faulty in confounding that which is to be distinguished He should have distinguished betwixt necessaries to salvation and necessaries to the universall Church as it is a Community though all that is necessary to salvation is necessary to the Church taken confusely of the persons yet whatsoever is necessary to the universall Church as a Community is not necessary to salvation for then before there was a competent aggregation in a Community there was no possibility of salvation And that Community is to be saved by the holding of things necessary is it not Yes he would say then this Community doth not come in to integrate things necessary to salvation and if not then those things which are necessary to this Community doth not come in neither Then he should have done well secondly to have distinguished betwixt a Church in its being and in its well being All things are not necessary to the being of a Church which are requisite to the bene esse of it Now salvation may
may be need of a Judge externall as to peace but for this there is no need of a Judge infallible If any thing would content them but a spirituall Monarchy this might yea neither it may be if such a Monarchy were necessary were this infallibility necessary because Ministeriall authority doth not essentially include such an infallibility But he goes on and useth an argument against me The word of God according to your own Doctrine was not sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies before the whole Canon of Scripture was compleatly finished but St. Paul said this of the word of God before the Canon of the Scripture was compleatly finished Therefore St. Paul said this of the word of God before the word of God was of it self alone sufficient to decide all Controversies Therefore then it had been false to say the word of God had been sufficient to this end Therefore St. Paul did not then say so Ans Besides what I said before concerning the use which I made of this text and to say nothing of what is here supposed that St. Paul was the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrews I answer to the major that that part of Scripture was then sufficient before the whole Canon was compleatly finished in our sense to decide all necessary Controversies as well as the old Testament was sufficient to make Timothy wise unto salvation and for those uses which are there spoken of in that text to Timothy therefore he mistakes us if he thinks we hold that that part which was then written was not sufficient And yet more might be added by God though not by man for the Canon then did not restrain God but man Therefore we answer also to the assumption that if he takes compleatly finished simply then indeed St. Paul said it before the Canon was compleatly finished but if he takes the words so as that part which was written was not sufficient in our sense we deny it For then God had not sufficiently provided for the Church of those times neither had the Scripture been able to make Timothy wise unto salvation So the terms in the former sense do not conclude in the latter they are concluding but not true So this specious argument is at an end without its end Onely we will now make use of the argument against him turning the mouth of the Canon as we may speak and it is thus St. Paul said this of the Scripture before the Canon was compleatly finished therefore now much rather after it is thus compleatly finished is it sufficient Or more fully thus The word of God according to his Doctrine is not sufficient after the Canon is compleatly finished St. Paul said this of the word of God before the Canon was compleatly finished therefore his Doctrine is contradictory to St. Pauls ex abundanti for St. Paul says the word was sufficient before the Canon was compleated and he says it is not sufficient after it is compleated Again those words speak not of the word of God blunted with those interpretations which your opinion licenseth Ans This is a plain cavill or a slander we license not any blunting of the edge of Scripture by any mis-interpretations We do not deny the use of Scripture as the Romanists do to the people Neither is it fit for them to complain of blunting the edge who take away the Sword of the Spirit We onely allow the people to be perswaded in their own mind concerning the sense of Scripture and if the Pontifician authority or arguments be able ex vi fua to perswade them that what sense they give is authentick let them be perswaded But it is very usuall for them to quarrell first who are most guilty that so they may least be discovered But who blunt Scripture so much as they who say the Scripture is like a nose of wax which may be turned any way Let him that is without sin in this kind cast the first stone at us How they have adulterated Scripture is known to all the world But of the word of God applied according to the Divinely-spirited interpretation of the Church in whose hands hands guided by the Holy Ghost this word of God is managed for the decision of Controversies that it is sharper than any two edged Sword Ans How often must we be forced to tell them that we exclude not the use of the Church in a due Representative towards composing of differences and also that the Church is not now infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost And therefore that their decision is not the last resolutive of faith and that there is no need of any such infallible Judge for necessary Controversies since there is no necessity of Controversies about things necessary And also that if there were such a Judge infallible we must know it and who it is infallibly And also then hereby are excluded the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of traditions for if the Scripture interpreted by the Church be to decide all Controversies then what need to have recourse to the word not written as to that which equally binds in things of faith And so then they destroy themselves And therefore whereas they say frequently that Scripture alone doth not decide all necessary Controversies we can easily distinguish that alone hath respect either to the Church or to traditions as it opposeth traditions so alone and it doth exclude them and as it doth respect the Church so though it doth not exclude the use of a Judge yet it doth exclude the necessity of a Judge infalble His other lines unto the eleventh num might have been spared Si non verum prius nec posterius And they have also been answered And here wisely he joins to the examination of my former texts Num. 11. another text which I produce against him in answer to the fourteenth number that he might handsomely decline an answer to that which if he would have dealt punctually I should have been answered in its place but we follow him at the running leap The text is that of Christ Search the Scriptures St. John 5.39 His exception is this To prove this to be understood in the Imperative mood evidently is impossible therefore evidently they do not contain a Command This is the sum of that discourse Ans First evident proof they had not best urge for then what will become of all their faith and all their discourse which doth not amount to so much as probability Secondly if it be more probable to be understood in the Imperative it is sufficient to weaken their cause since I am to be considered as proposing the text by way of a respondent not as an opponent Therefore if I name a text which is but probable against them it is enough for me against them specially in the cause of infallibility for a probable contradiction undoes infallibility Thirdly it is in the Syriack in the Imperative mood and this interpretation if any other should weigh with us
things necessary to salvation But we are referred to Scripture as appears by those texts and not to an infallible Judge for ought appears clear by my Adversary therefore the Scripture plainly sets down all things necessary to salvation the consequence is plain as denying the reason of an infallible Judge which should be because we are not sufficiently furnished in Scripture unto things of faith then if we be referred to Scripture in point of faith as there is no need of tradition to supply our faith in the matter so neither is there an infallible Judge necessary to supply the want of the Scriptures manner of expression For all the Controversie betwixt us in point of Scripture must be reduced to these two either that all which is to be believed is not contained in Scripture and this brings in tradition with them or that which is in Scripture is not plainly enough set down and this brings in the question of the infallible Judge So then if we be referred to Scripture in point of faith we need no infallible Church either for object or infallible resolution of faith Now as for the minor that we are referred to Scripture those texts prove sufficiently and he cannot deny it that we are referred to an infallible Judge he hath not yet proved and I deny it Yea what will they say if the last text onely proves an Elench Thus. If the cause of error be not knowing the Scriptures then the Scriptures doe plainly contain all things necessary but the cause of erring assigned here by Christ St. Mark 12.24.28 is the not knowing of the Scriptures The minor is Scripture the consequence also would be able to maintain it self but that they think that we cannot draw a consequent universall from an antecedent particular for the text there is applyed to a particular point of the Resurrection To this we answer first simply we cannot argue an universall conclusion from particular premisses because the genus contains potentially more than one species but they know that the resurrection is a main point and comprehensive of more so that Aquinas might well conclude him to be an Heretick that denied the immortallity of the Soul because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he denied the Resurrection It includes also the Resurrection of Christ 1. Ep. Cor. 15.13 If there be no Resurrection from the dead then Christ is not risen So then if by the Scripture we may be right in the knowledge of our Resurrection and consequently in the knowledge of Christs Resurrection which supposeth his death that his Incarnation his Incarnation God the Father as he speaks if ye had known me ye had known my Father also then it doth plainly enough set down that which supposeth as much as was necessary for those in the time of the Law because they had enough to bring them into the hope of the Resurrection unlesse we say with the Socinians that they had no hope of the Resurrection And secondly if the Resurrection was sufficiently declared in the old Testament it being so fundamentall a point what reason can be given why other points which are also necessary should not likewise be plainly delivered And thirdly if that and other points were competently enough revealed in the old Testament that the cause of erring was the not knowing of the Scriptures not the not knowing of the Church then surely the new Testament which is the old revealed doth set down that and other points with sufficient plainnesse unto salvation And this is sufficient to our purpose As for the consequence then from the former Text which he thinks more probable that because they did err therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture I answer first he argues ab esse ad probabile which is not rationall ab esse ad posse is good But we cannot argue that because such a thing is come to passe that therefore it was probable it should for then because Adam did sin we must say it was probable he should sin and so he had not been created with a posse peccare and a posse non peccare in equall freedom for probability must arise from an inclination And if they say that the case is different from the fall of man and therefore depravation by the fall doth non incline the power of erring to an actuall error as the power of sinning unto an actuall sin we answer first that they had not best enlarge the corruption of nature by the fall lest they bring the Trent Council as to this point in danger of error and secondly we say that if they exclude not the grace of God from taking direction by the Church so neither do we exclude the grace of God from taking direction by the Scripture and if they say men cannot err if with grace or by it they take the guidance of the Church then surely with grace or by grace it may be as probable not to err through the knowledge of the Scripture and therefore his consequence of more probability that the Scriptures are not plain because they did err is vain Secondly if those who erred were but a part and sect of the Jews and those that did not err might be the greater number if not the soberer then it will follow by his own argument that this was plainly enough set down in Scripture Thirdly he supposeth that which is not to be supposed if he thinks that we hold things so plainly delivered in Scripture as that we cannot err whether we will keep the way or not for Scripture doth directly work upon the understanding grace upon the will It is therefore sufficient to us to say that things necessary are so clearly proposed in Scripture as that if we be dilligent to know and follow Scripture we need no infallibility of the Church Fourthly he might have been advised that this discourse of his will return upon him to the prejudice of their Church for it should seem then as hath been often noted things are not so plainly defined by their Church since there are such differences amongst them even in grand points Fifthly we distinguish betwixt knowledge in habitu and knowledge in actu their habituall knowledge of the Resurrection in Scripture might be good and it might be plainly enough exhibited but they were defective in the actuall knowledge in not considering those principles of Scripture which might have concluded it according as our Saviour doth upon the place And surely as the not considering is the moral cause of most of our evil actions according to that of the Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore also saith David I have considered my ways and turned my feet into thy Testimonies so also is the not considering Scripture the cause of all or most of our errors at least the cause of the danger in the errors we have and if they would study the Scripture affectionately they could not err as they do The Principles of Scripture are sufficient
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
and consequently hope too Yet we may hope to make his charge nought and our faith good but we need not say any more than what hath been said whereunto he hath said as much as comes to little yet now he diverts hither We must say therefore again that this should not be a question betwixt us how we believe the Scriptures to be the word of God for this is supposed betwixt us as the subject of the question And we say that the sense of this argumentation is to as much purpose as if when we are at London we must go back again because we did not go the new way As to the Assumption then we deny it We do ground our assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation Yea moreover we return him his argument in terms and therefore they have no Divine faith so naturall it is for those to speak most who have a mind to cover their own defects They cannot ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation because they ground it upon the authority of the Church for they must either have an immediate revelation that the Church is infallible or else they must ground it upon the general sum of revealed truth and that is the Scripture for as for Tradition that which is of a particular Church is of no weight as to this businesse and universall Tradition must go upon account of the Church now then if they say that they have a Revelation immediate that the Church is infallible in proposing those books to be Canonical they make that to be of use to them which they deny to us who have as good reason to say that we may as well have an immediate revelation that the Scripture is the word of God but if they ground their faith upon some texts of Scripture which concern the Church then they must believe the Scripture for it self So then either they must come to us or else indeed they have no Divine faith And therefore had he no cause to be offended with that I said that the Canonical books are worthy to be believed for themselves as we assent to prime principles in the habit of Intelligence To this he says in a parenthesis And so is the book of Toby and Judith as well as these But doth he say this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth he not then find fault with the antient Church who did not as hath been shewn give equall reverence to these as to the books Canonical If they be as worthy to be believed as the books Canonical then they erred in not receiving them with equall belief And if they erred then our Adversaries are lost And now as for our assent to the Canonicall books in the manner of assent to prime principles by the help of the Spirit of God they are not like to prosper in the abuse of it First it is to be noted that we are not now to deal with one that denies the Scripture to be the word of God for to an unbeliever hereof we should use other arguments rationally to induce him to a good opinion hereof but when we are demanded by a Christian what is it that grounds our faith of Scripture one would think we might say that we are resolved to a Divine faith hereof by the Spirit of God disposing our assent to them as of themselves worthy to be believed which is the reason of assent to prime principles And therefore secondly we do not say that our assent to the Canonical books is by a naturall light as our assent to prime principles but that our assent is made to them by way of Intelligence through the Spirit the light of the Spirit as to shew us the Scripture to be worthie of belief for it selfe is supernaturall but when that comes we believe it as we do prime principles not by discourse but because it is credible of it self Faith herein bears more proportion to intelligence than to science because we do not in faith use a reason to the act as we do in science And this is intimated in the common reading of that text of the Prophet Si non crediderint non intelligent if they will not believe they shall not understand so then since faith is a supernaturall habit as the School-men the Spirit of God doth infuse it into us as being an habit infused as they speak and this doth dispose us to believe the Scripture to be the word of God as by him indited And one would think that it is a better ground to believe it to be the word of God because he saith so than to believe it because the Church saith so and it is more about because I cannot believe it upon the account of the Church but because God gives testimony of the Church and why cannot we then believe God teste seipso So all the assent we give to them is made upon the veracity of God which is the center in which all lines of Scripture do meet and terminate Therefore might he have spared that which follows Have you brought all the infallibility of Christian Religion unto this last ground to be trampled by the Socinians Ans First I do not see what reason we have to lay the foundation of Religion so as to please the Socinian One who maintained the Protestant cause was prejudiced by suspition of being inclined to Socinianism and I am now found fault with for not providing for their satisfaction in our principles Well but secondly I do not finde that Socinians do abhor this tenure of Scripture And thirdly they to be sure do trample upon the authority of their Church as infallible And therefore this is to be returned home to the Romanist And also upon the former grounds might he have omitted what follows from doe you expect unto all that you believe for although the object is to be believed for it self as a prime principle yet is there not a naturall light for it that comes supernaturally and therefore faith is a supernatural habit But if they would be accounted such rationall men in the faith of Scripture they do deserve from the Socinian a negative reverence by a positive favour to them But again how far is that which I have said different from the determination of Ratisbon in their fourth session Scripturae dicuntur perfectae quoad perfectionem eredibilitatis et exactissimae veritatis The Scriptures are said perfect as in respect of the perfection of credibility and most exact truth And the perfection of credibility belongs to the first principles which are indemonstrable And as those principles have themselves immobiliter unto Sciences as Aquinas so the Scriptures have themselves unto Divinity Here we must rest And if every one doth not believe them to be the word of God upon this account this doth not derogate from the credibility of the object thus we say that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God is evident of its own self needing no further proof for the requiring
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
they were read in the Church The strength of this reasoning is resolved into this proposition Whatsoever is read in the Church is to be taken for Canonical and this proposition is false by the practice of the Church of England by St. Jerom's distinction yea also by the Canon it self for it sayes Liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur Itmay be lawfull also to read the passions of the Martyrs when their anniversary days are celebrated And also if that reason did bind the Fathers in the Council of Carthage to establish them as Canonical why did it not as well bind St. Jerom in whose time the books also were read if they were universally read And if the Church of God was sufficiently instructed in point of faith without them till St. Austin's time which was above four hundred years after Christ as Bellarmin confesseth why may not the Church be well enough without them still For either there must be nothing in them materiall or expositionall which is simply necessary for Gods Church or else the Church of God for the purest and best times must be unprovided thereof as Canonically to ground faith If they confesse the former we have what we would if the latter besides other consequences they destroy the rule of faith to Councils themselves or as some now will say by succession of tradition Therefore by this instance he gets nothing it is neither proof nor disproof Num. 28. Here he triumphs before the victory he doth here put a new face upon an old argument If you say that we must have a speciall Spirit that is new eyes to see it then you who have this Spirit are all Prophets discovering by private Revelation made to your selves that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover This argument prophylactical preserves them little A speciall Spirit is considerable two ways either in ordine ad subjectum or in ordine ad objectum it may be speciall in the first sense and not in the latter Now it is the speciall Spirit in the latter sense which makes the Prophet when some new thing is revealed thus we deny any speciall Spirit which rather belongs to them who will not have all things for necessary faith and manners revealed in Scripture that so they may find in the Church by tradition the points of their Religion which they cannot find in Scripture as is noted But also the speciall faith in the first sense may be subdistinguished it is considerable either as oppositly to those who have not faith or respectively to those who have faith in the first way we say it is speciall for all men have not faith as the Apostle speaks 2 Thes 3.2 but if it be taken respectively to those who have faith we say it is not speciall but common for there is no true dogmaticall faith but such as Stapleton and their Schoolmen confesse Yea this argument may be returned to them too if they say they are inlightned by the Spirit to see all truth infallibly to be delivered by the Church they have the new eyes and they are all Prophets discerning by private revelation made to them selves that which all mankind besides could not discover So then the other old argument which here he incrustates that if the evidence of Scripture to be the word of God were such as of a prime principle as this It is impossible that any thing should be and not be in the self same circumstances then all should assent to it as they do to this principle is again slighted for first every one hath not that supernaturall light or eye to see the truth of that first principle that the Scripture is the word of God which we have said before but then secondly the prime principle in Metaphysicks are not so clear as to exclude all necessity of means of knowledge of them though they do naturally perswade assent so there are means of knowing the Scripture which do not prejudice their autopisty through the Spirit of God and therefore there may be a failing of belief Yea thirdly the Spirit bloweth where it listeth John 3.8 Yea fourthly many truths are assented to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he said which are not prophorically acknowledged And yet some of their own men have confessed this truth being overcome by the soveraignty of it Fifthly it is retorted if the authority of the Church were the prime principle for the evidence of faith then all would assent to it but all doe not assent to it therefore by his own argument the Church's authority is not the prime principle But the assistance of the Spirit he then pleads a fortiori for the Church the Church having far more proof of her assistance than every private Protestant Ans First we have no to need be put upon the compare with the Church If the Church have infallible assistance herein yet private Christians may have it too and that would be sufficient for us in this point But secondly the Church is no otherwise infallibly certain hereof than we for this is assured to every one that votes it in the Council the same way if indeed they doe give their suffrage upon a ground infallible Thirdly the private Christian is assured hereof by the Spirit for himself therefore the Council needs not be infallible herein as to teach it because we are thus taught of God If the compare were thus if the private Christian were thus assisted to teach others much more the Council this would be somewhat like but the private Christian doth not undertake this and yet doth it not follow that this infallibility doth attend the Council which doth undertake to teach others because there is use of its teaching without infallibility and no need of its teaching infallibly this point which we are infallibly perswaded of by the Spirit of God And fourthly we deny that there is any points of as much consequence wherein the Church should be assisted with infallibility as this that the Scripture is the word of God because if we be assured of this we need not depend upon any infallibility in the Church for other points since all things necessary are with sufficient plainnesse set down in the Scripture Fifthly as before the Christians were assured hereof before Pope or Council in which he placeth the authority infallible of the Church And again if the universall Church had this priviledge they speak of they are to prove themselves to be first a true part and then also that the part hath the property of the whole and when they have done these we can say as much yea more for our own Church And lastly they are yet to shew their clearer proofs of assistance to the Church than a private Christian hath for the hardest of all points namely that the Scripture is the word of God which indeed if it be compared with the points of Controversie in Divinity is not the hardest point
and is therefore assured us by the Spirit not because it is the hardest point but because it is the ground of all faith Perhaps because our Divines often call the Scriptures an undoubted principle the first principle you think they hold this principle like the first principles in Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable because they are of themselves as evident as any reason you can bring to make them more evident Ans No I had better reason for it than the expressions of their own Divines although we need no more if they in effect confesse as much as will serve us in the dispute But it is impossible for them or any other to fix a foot in Divinity but upon this ground or else we shall have no other assurance for the last resolution of faith than what we have in kind for Virgil's or Cicero's works Yea moreover their own Divines give this character of the Scripture because it is true of it it is not true because they say it and yet if it were true because they say it we make use of the Conclusion Or if it be an unquestioned principle because it is already granted to be God's word by all parties then why doth my Adversary call this into question which is the subject of the question and by all parties granted And also this makes it to be a common principle that it is granted by all parties And therefore are we to be tryed by it as by a common principle and not by the Church which is not granted by all parties to be that we should be tryed by specially if it be assumed that the Roman Church is the onely Church for then there will be a double Controversie one in thesi whether all faith is ultimately to be resolved by the Church and then another in hypothesi whether the Roman be the Church But we now put together that which he distinguisheth the Scripture is an undoubted principle and the first principle but not as the principle of Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable c. We discourse thus That which is indemonstrable is as the principle of Sciences but that which is as evident as any reason can be brought for it to make it more evident is indemonstrable therefore is it as a principle of Sciences The proposition is with my Adversary the propertie of the first principles in Sciences The Assumption is with my Adversary the very ratio formalis indemonstrabilitatis so then if the Scripture to be the word of God be as evident as any reason that can be brought for it to make it more evident then we have what we now contend for Now then if the Scripture cannot be demonstrated to be the word of God by the Church a priori then is it as evident as any reason can be brought for it but verum prius for the Church must be demonstrated by the Scriptures as we have often proved And if the Scripture were demonstrated by the Church a priori then were the Church the cause of Scripture which they themselves do not say and therefore may we give a reason of the Church by the Scripture and not infallibly of the Scripture by the Church and therefore is it as a prime principle in Sciences indemonstrable And yet my Adversary would circumvent me in the next number and bring me into a circle thinking that I am bound to give another proof by the Spirit why by the Spirit I do believe that the Scripture is the word of God but we stop him at first before he goes his rounds for he supposeth that which is not to be supposed that the testimony of the Spirit is not sufficient to make it self good to us of it self and that therefore we need another revelation secure from all illusion to ascertain me the former Ans This is little lesse than trifling for first we say not this internall testimony is proveable to others faith objective is proveable by Scripture but faith subjective is not proved but somewhat shewed by a good life for faith works by love as St. Paul And optimus Syllogismus bona vita as he said the best argument to others we have of faith is a good life But secondly we are as secure of the not being deceived in the testimony of the Spirit as the Apostles were in the kind Yea if we cannot be ascertained by the same testimony then how can the Council be assured that they are infallibly assisted by the Spirit Yea thirdly we are upon the higher ground for the assecuration of our faith because we resolve it into that which is antecedent to the Church and therefore have they lesse cause to put us upon intergatories why we believe the Scriptures for if we do not believe it for it self we have no reason to believe the Church To his Dilemma then Either I try the Spirit whether it be of God or no if I do not how am I then secure If I doe by what infallible means If I say by the Scripture you must needs laugh because you speak of the first act of belief c. Ans We say first that he misapplieth the text of the Apostle Trie the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 it is not meant of the Spirit of God I hope he thinks but of the Spirits of men which is our argument against them and therefore can we not sit down with absolute belief to what is proposed by man till we see it center'd upon the word of God which we believe infallibly came from God Secondly the tryall of the Spirits there injoined is by examining the matter whether proportionable to the word of faith but here he draws it to the triall of Scripture it self which is the rule of triall Thirdly though we do not try the testimony of the Spirit attesting to us the truth of Scripture yet the matter of Scripture may we compare with universall tradition which serves us for our use in the ministry of the Church not for our faith in the causality thereof Fourthly to be even with my Adversaries we return them their Dilemma they say we must believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Church which they say is infallible but we must infallibly know that this testimony of the Church is infallible by the Spirit of truth which leads us into all truth And this cannot be infallibly known but by a Revelation secure from all illusion And how come they by this revelation Either they try the Spirit or not if not how can they be secure If they doe by what infallible means If they say by the Church we must needs laugh because we speak of the first act of belief by which we first begin to believe the Church to be infallible Therefore all his agains are sent back again and the issue of all will come to this either this faith of the Scripture to be the word of God must be resolved into the testimony of the Spirit or of the
know that de officio this is the way of constituting and so of distinguishing the Church and de facto this is the way that S. Austin and also some of their owne Divines do prove the Church by yea this is the way which my Adversaries must take and do And thirdly neither do we say that we believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit but to those who do professe the beliefe of the Scripture to be the word of God And therefore are we even with them in this kinde for as they deale with Heathens as to the proofe of Scripture by the Church so do we also as the Fathers were wont by the Church universal And I can use the authority of the Church as an inducement unto the Heathen although the Pontificians cannot use the authority of the Chnrch to me as the determinative of faith So then if they can prove the authority of the Church infallibly to be infallible without dependence upon the Scripture they shall indeed speak to the purpose Otherwise they are shut up in a circle out of which they can never move their foot The thirty second number hath in it much and little longae Num. 32. Ambages sed summa sequor fastigia rerum The intendment of it is to fix the wheel by assuring the Church to be infallible without running to the Scripture In the beginning of it it would prove their faith good because they believed those who delivered it had Commission from God But this satisfieth not because the question rebounds upon them why they believed that those who delivered it had Commission from God If they say they had assurance thereof by the Spirit then they come to our kind of assurance Therefore they determine this belief upon two motives one comming from the Doctrine in order to God change of life the other from God in order to the Doctrine in miracles and there he amplifies in two leaves which might have been dispatched in three words Indeed the first he says not much of for it is no concluding argument For first it doth not distinguish Doctrines for thus the Jew the Arrian the Socinian the Sectary might prove his Doctrine infallible Secondly the good life if it were a result of Doctrine yet not from the points of difference but the generall fundamentalls of Christian faith wherein the Controversies lie not Yea thirdly if this new life did proceed by way of emanation or absolute connexion from the points of difference we might join issue with them and have the better Yea fourthly Judas had a right Commission and yet no good life Yea fifthly the manners are rather to be proved good by the practicall Doctrine than speculative Doctrine if any Doctrine ultimately be such proved good by manners Therefore good life is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Divine Doctrine nor yet of a Divine Commission Yea sixthly Dato non concesso that we mighr know the Church and Doctrine of it to be infallible by good life yet this is not conformable to their postulate that God should teach us all verity by the mouth of the Church as Stapleton speaks Then as to the other motive of faith in the true Church namely miracles we can say severall things first in thesi miracles are no certain distinctive of a Divine Commission because the man of sin may deceive by lying wonders as St. Paul speaks 2 Thes 2.9 And also Moses Deut. 13.1 2. Then this is no infallible motive for the believing of a Commission from God because we may be deceived in it And although upon supposition of a true miracle we might conclude a Commission from God yet this is not the way infallible because we may be deceived in the truth of the miracle whether it be such or not since the miracle cannot fidem facere de se as the testimony of the Spirit can Secondly the gift of miracles was a gift common to those who were not all Prophets as to penning of the Scripture and also not common for ought we know to some who did as St. Mark and S. Luke therefore this is not sufficient to resolve our faith in their Commission because not given Omni nor soli for whatsoever doth distinguish must have it self per modum differentiae Thirdly therefore since we must have faith to believe the miracles to be true we ask how we come to this faith if by the operation of the Spirit then faith ultimately is fixed upon our foundation namely the testimony of the Spirit by which we may as well be assured that the Scripture is the true word of God as that miracles are true Fourthly the gift of miracles was temporary and accomodated for that season of the Church And therefore cannot we prove by miracles new Doctrines as Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Communion in one kinde Transubstantiation Supremacy of the Roman Bishop therefore if miracles did infallibly ascertain the divine Commission of the Prophets and Apostles to speak and write yet are not we satisfied by them in the question of new Doctrines which the Scripture gives us no account of but therefore he comes to Oral tradition For as for his reasoning in form thus in hypothesi The Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles therefore the Doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For first not to carp at the form of his syllogism we say to the proposition that if they preached the Doctrine of the Roman Church as differently from the whole Church they preached what they ought not to preach and so the minor proposition is false If they did preach the same doctrine which the whole Church received in Scripture from the Apostles then we grant the minor and the conclusion too as much as doctrine can be confirmed by miracles but we distinguish of the time when the miracles were wrought namely in the time of the Apostles and by them For as for miracles done by S. Austin to confirm the same faith which we abolished in our reformation we say that Bede and Gregory and Brierly whom he quotes for testimony hereof are not to us surely of sufficient authority in their own cause Nay secondly they had best not add the testimony of the learned Magdeburgians lest they be ashamed to slight them in other matters but also chiefly upon this consideration because if the points of difference were confirmed by many miracles which he refers us to Brierly in his Index for then by the Argument before those points of difference were new for as miracles have themselves to faith so new miracles to new faith And if it was a new faith then it was not received by oral tradition from the Apostles successively and then they are undone Therefore let them speak no more to us of the miracles of S. Austin the Monk who shewed nothing so much wonderful as his pride in
for Iudith Then one of the Councils must erre either that which established Iudith and not the rest or that which established Iudith and the rest namely that of Carthage wihch my Adversary saies S. Ierome had not seen One thought them not fit to be declared Canonical another thought them to be fit And is not this a contradiction of Council to Council Again Bellarmine saies that S. Ierome did afterwards receive the Book of Iudith Now I desire to know how much time that after doth suppose for If S. Ierome had received it presently we should have heard of it if much time after as it might be by the words then the Authority of the Church seemed not to S. Ierome so intuitively to oblige as the Antagonists suppose Had he thought the Church infallible would he have stuck at it Do not the Romanists know the rule in Tacitus Qui de liberant desciverunt They which deliberate have already revolted What he would have me note by the way that the Fathers of the Council of Carthage did acknowledge the Maccabees for true Scripture it is no difficult matter to give account to For first he goes upon a false Principle that if those Fathers were of our Religion then we must make them agree with us in this prime Principle upon which we receive all Scripture as Gods infallible Word This is not so for my living Adversaries may know that one who hath defended our Religion hath been quoted to me as differing from me in this point and that is Mr. Chillingworth Though all that are of this opinion are like to be of our Religion yet all of our Religion it seems are not of this opinion For indeed the Protestant Religion supposeth the Scripture to be the Word of God as a common Principle and therefore also there should not have been any contestation about this point if our Adversaries had not been resolved to question all Religion which is not properly theirs Secondly Therefore they might have received Scripture upon the Authority of Universal Tradition which also abstracts from the Roman Impropriation Thirdly Since they had not Universal Tradition for those Apochryphal Bookes as it seems by S. Ierom we cannot neither upon that account be ingaged to receive them as Canonical Fourthly Since they did not receive them by Universal Tradition as appears also by Cyril of Ierusalem as before and since they are not to be discerned by their own light as my Adversaries will confess nor by the conditions of the matter what reason shall we have to receive them For if they say the Council was assisted by the Holy Ghost we ask what was it assisted as a Council or as such a Council if as a Council why had not the other the same Assistance if as such a Council how shall we discern which Council the Holy Ghost will assist unto infallibility Et solos credit habendos Esse Deos quos ipse colit N. 45. In this he is pleased to move again the same stone which will in the end return upon himself again For how came one Council to acknowledge the Maccabees and another not were not the former Council as well irradiated as the latter Yes they were more in all account but of my Adversary who is not in so good a capacity to grant that the Argument from Authority of the Church graduates its strength by the greater nearness to the Primitive For he holds an equal assistance of the Spirit to the Church at all times But the old saying was Quò antiquius eò melius And the rule is good Ut se habet simpliciter ad simpliciter ita magis ad magis maximè ad maximè if it be good as ancient then the more ancient the more good And this at other times is the advantage which the Romanists would take in claiming the credit of the Original Church to them And besides he might have considered that he had no reason to bring this about again because the reason of their reception as was said before is expressed to depend upon the custome of their being read in the Church which doth not make them or declare them to be Canonical unles in S. Ieroms distinction for the edifying of the people in manners not for confirmation of faith Well then if one Council might see what another did not without prejudice to the object then S. Ierome might not see or Luther what S. Austin did without prejudice to the credibility of Scripture Yea it is not yet proved that S. Austin accounted the Book of Maccabees as Canonical as other Books But this is actum agere And again he repeats what he hath not done Let them not trouble us for they have lost their strength And yet again S. Matthews Gospel N. 46. He had better have solidly proved which he sleightly puts off the proof of in the end of the last section that they do not prove the infallibility of the Church first by Scripture I assure them this is a Fort-royal and therefore this should be made good at all hands Well but let us see his Argument in the face about S. Matthews Gospel which he saies he hath forced a passage to Surely he had no such reason to rally and obtrude this Argument again and to be so confident of it as to say boldly that it cannot possibly by our Principles ever come to be believed with an infallible assent to be Gods true uncorrupted word Why not Nay here is all of this no proof We looked for a Spear like a Weavers Beam or else some new Sword whereby the Philistin thought to have slain David but here is none yet Yea Sâ—apleton shall sufficiently answer him with a contradiction as before who saies It is not absolutely necessary to Faith that it should be produced by the Authority of the Church but it may be caused immediately by the Spirit of God So then it is possible by our Principles to believe it with an infallible assent to be the Word of God And before a Church was formed how did the material Members believe any point of Faith then it is possible But then he slides to another way as he thought of urging hiâ— Argument and that is the Marcionites the Cerdonists and the Manichaeans do deny and others may come to deny the Gospel of S. Matthew to be Gods true Word Yea but this is another question It is one thing to believe it to be Gods Word and another to prove it to him that denies it to be Gods Word Now the question in hand is how we believe it to be Gods Word And therefore we say as to such we deal with them as we deal with others who deny any part of Scripture not by the Authority of the Roman Church and therefore the Romanists get nothing by this Argument but by Universal Tradition as a common Argument which rather makes a Scholastical Faith than a Faith Divine of proper name So that also he cannot reasonably
good Scripture for none give the terme and afterwards tâ—e signification but the Latin but the name Manna they do not name And whether that be the signification of Manna deserves a criticism Some think that it may come from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it should signifie a portion neither is Bethel interpreted upon the place Gen. 35.15 So then upon the whole matter that which he confidently saies being not so in his own Instances and more my conjecture is yet true and good unless they can make the Latine Translation to be as Catholique Scripture as they would have the Pope to be universal Bishop And surely if a Translator of Scripture doth translate words of Scripture where the words are not interpreted in Scripture he is not a Translator of Scripture quoad hoc formally but materially of that which is Scripture And this is not to render Scripture so much as to make it And moreover they may know this to be the usage of the Evangelists besides which are acknowledged to have written originally in Greek to give the Interpretation of the Hebrew or Syriack words My conjecture then is well recovered of its weakness But then he falls upon me for giving a contradiction to S. Ierom. Though he saith he did see a copie of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes you reject him though all the Fathers Writings extant stand on his side Answ A conjecture of a possibility of the contrary makes no such contradiction which stands betwixt affirmation and negation categorically 2. S. Ierom then hath rather contradicted them if a conjecture be sufficient to a contradiction For can we conceive that there is not room enough for a conjecture that either that Copie which S. Ierom had use of or that which he described which may be as certain as some other may now be extant in the world which contradicts my Adversary 3. If there were an Hebrew Copie it is more than a conjecture it is more than probable that he who translated it into Greek did exactly compare it with the Hebrew whose faithfulness in those times we might better trust than some Romans now And also they know that the Pope may be deceived in point of fact Neither did all the Fathers I suppose see the Hebrew Copie And it would have been enough that none of the Fathers are against it but it is a greater adventure to say all the Fathers stand on that side And also they may know what Father did profess that he did see the remainers of those cells in which the Seventy did translate the Old Testament and who contemns that testimony I think I bear as much respect to the Fathers as some of the Romanists do or more but yet if I should hold with the Romans against the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome was the universal Bishop I should not be blamed for contradicting the Fathers But to his Argument This Copie translateth ergo it is a translation Answ Tâ—e Antecedent begs the question whether it doth translate or not Whatsoever doth interpret doth not translate And therefore here is an Argument for me It doth not translate ergo it is not a Translation And it doth not translate for then the Interpretation must be in the Hebrew which is denied to have been the use of the Hebrews as before especially in the same case where the name is given in the same letters which signifie the interpretation Therefore the Latine doth not translate when it giveth the Interpretation as in the former examples And the other Evangelists are not Translators when they interpret Hebrew or Syriack words So his Argument is for me And so my cause is not lost as to this point since also S. Austin professed in that of his against the Epistle of the Manichean that he would hear Reason against Antiquity at least surely he might do so in matter of fact Your third shift is in place of giving answer to make an objection asking why our Latine Translation was made authentique if the Church had made the Greek authentique Answ Shall I say that my Adversary doth not seem here to know well what shift to make since he carps at my answering by way of question But then they should be better advised than to make such Arguments as they will not be willing to answer an intergatory about in the same matter But he saies passing by some other words which seem too hot for him I know of no body who told you that the Greek Translation was made authentique by the Church I return upon him Was the Greek Translation made authentique or not He is not willing to say it was nor it was not But I press them Was it or was it not If it was not then their Translation was not of authentique Scripture and so again they do not translate but make Scripture If it was made authentique by the Church then what need of two authentique Translations Again if it were not made authentique by the Church then the Church could be without the authentique Gospel of Saint Matthew and yet have enough for salvation and therefore can we be as well without Traditions of the Church because I presume they profess so much reverence to the Gospel of S. Matthew that they will not say that Traditions are more necessary than the Gospel of S. Matthew And if it were made authentique absolutely by the Church we can better believe it by the vertue of Universal Tradition than they can believe their Latine by the authority of the Roman Church And if it be necessary as it is that Translations as such should agree with Originals and the question be which is the Original or where the Original is to be found they are in as great difficulty as we for then they have no certainty of an Original as to this Gospel to make use of for their Translation And if their Latine as to this was a Translation of a Translation we have the better cause in this because we trust rather to the first Translation And if some part of the Church made use of the Septuagints Translation in stead of the Hebrew and the Pen-men of the New Testament made so much use of it also as is confessed by learned men then may we rather make use of the Gospel of Saint Matthew in Greek than they in Latine Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the harmony with other Gospels Ans A great deal he saies to this which I might spare the refutation of upon these reasons First because I compare the harmony of this Gospel to the other Gospels with the credit of the Church therefore do I not make this to be an Argument absolute 2. Because I spoke of the harmony betwixt this and other Gospels and not betwixt this Gospel and other parts of scripture and therefore he playes the Sophister the discourse is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas then he does deny my Argument by compare of it with
N. 50. Here he tels us of an argument in the 14 num of the former treatise with infallible faith this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he beggs the question And if they cannot prove the cause to be theirs with out our free graunt they are not like to have it And therefore this being denied him as before all that he would build thereupon must fall to wit therefore we must be assisted in this infallible knowledge by some other infallible means and no other infallible meanes can with any shadow of probability be said given to us but the infallible authority of the Church therefore her athority must be infallible as shall at large be shewed in the next chap. and then in the next after that that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman This is all wast and lost unles they could maintain it to be necessary charity in us to preserve their cause from starving by graunting that which it ought not to have And 2. Dato non concesto suppose there must be some other meanes of infallible deciding doubtful sense of Scripture I can make it a question whether they can plead the next right as if they came vacuam possessionem for the place may be ful by universal tradition which surely is not the same with the Roman Church for the whole surely is greater then the part and then also when you prove the Roman faith by universal tradition you would prove the Roman faith by the Roman and this is idem per idem And as for the 3. thing that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman which he saies he will prove in the last chapter surely if I may speak it without offence he does very well to refer it to the last for he may doe any thing before it But also since his supposition that we cannot be certain by the Scriptures infallibly of their own true sense in points necessary to salvation with infallible faith must fall without a better support we may be at our last already for if this be not good the other chapters make number And this number makes no weight He doth nothing in it but tell us that he hath done so and so which we interpret nothing Infallibility should not need many words In this N. 52. he would wipe off the suspicion of disrespect to Scipture in those termes he used and would lay a blame upon me for my censure of his words to this purpose His words were these if he would have given us a book for Iudge he would never have given us for our Iudge such a book as Scripture is which very often speaketh obscurely sometimes so prophetically that most would think it spake of the present time when it speaketh of the time to come that it speaketh of one person for example of David when it speaketh of another for example of Christ And much more I added to this effect that I might be rightly understood when I said that God would never have given us such a book for our judge To what of this he said in his former treatise I said Sir Let me have leave to speak affectionately to you Do not you see what disrespects 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 Scripture is So you This I said And now he examins these words strictly and saies My adversary to avoide this argument so mangleth the sense that he may-make my words sound of a blasphemous disrespect reporting them as if I should have said if God had intended Scripture for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture Ans Surely this is a false charge that I have mangled his words for I have given the full sense of them And this may be demonstrated by denying of the end which he makes to be to avoide the argument For I do not see any such difficulty in the argument that I should decline it and fall upon the person This is not my mind or manner But I could find fault with his dealing with me even here for he puts together that which I did not put together For he saies I accused him of a blasphemous disrespect whereas I said disrespect if not blasphemies and also the termes if not blasphemies without a grain of charity might have been construed without an affirmation Nether doth he right me or clear himself in the prosecution of his defence For my words in all reason doe represent as much as if I had added what he said I should have added These words if God had intended a book for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture must connotate this sense that he would not have given us such a book as Scripture for our Iudge And therefore he needed not to quarrel upon the omission as if I had not dealt fairely with him consider it in the form of an hypothetical proposition if God had intended a book for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture is what need be added for our Iudge when it is understood of course They know the rule Quod necessario subintelligitur nunquam deest That which is necessarily understood is never wanting And therefore have I not done his words any injury by mangling them nor yet by interpretation of them still they seem to sound such an imperfect book as Scripture and must do so if they have full sense in them But also if we might say what S. Austin said of the Heretiques words Bene haec acciperentur nisi ab eo dicerentur cujus sensus notus est so here these words might be better construed if they were not spoken by such whose sense was known For unless the Scripture be a book imperfect in regard of matter what need of tradition unless the Scripture were imperfect in regard of cleareness what needed an infallible judge to decide controversies about the sense Therefore he cannot get clearely off Aqua haeret And surely he doth not helpe himself or his cause by a like case he puts if God had intended the Scripture for sole Iudge in Law controversies he would never have given us such a book as Scripture is for our Iudge Doth this passe any handsome and respective reflexion upon Scripture As if it were no fitter to decide controversies in Divinity then in the Law And do they not think that we may have more reason to be bold with them than they with Scripture if God had intended that we should have been absolutely determined in matters of faith by General Council would he have given us such a pack'd Council as the Council of Trent was And yet moreover all he saies is besides the mark For this we doe not contend for that the scripture is the sole Judge
is under a command and express precept St. Matth. 22.37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind And this cannot be moulded into the notion of a counsel for thus Christ answers to the question in the ver before what is the great Commandement of the Law And also in the ver after he saies this is the first and great Commandement Now to do thus is most perfect charity and therefore what we can do is comprehended under all that is commanded yea if the law requires more then we can do according to ordinary measure of grace then we cannot do more than the law requires now this the law requires and not only semper but ad semper as to the internal duty of love And who is there in all the world that loves the Lord alwaies with all his heart with all his soul with all his mind And therfore Gods law is not to be cut short that it may be made even with our ability present Neither doth the text named by him out of St. Iohn prove obedience to the law possible to us in the way we may keep Gods commandements in generale though not all as we ought as we are said to keep the way though sometimes we transgresse We may keep the commandements as a man keeps a Castle against the enemies he keeps it till he be beat out of it he keeps it against forsaking it but he doth not keep it so as not to be overcome he keeps them as to the purpose of his mind he doth not keep them absolutly as to all acts negative in commands negative and positive acts in affirmative commands He keeps them not as keeping contradicts all offending for in many things we offend all as St. Iames speaks And therefore can we not fulfil the law because the same Apostle saies 2 ch 10. He that keeps the whole law and offend in one shall be guilty of all And therefore this argument is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for we can say that we may keep the commandements yet not fulfil them according to the power we had in Adam and according to the measure of the obligation which is not adequated to our strength now but to Gods law as an express of his holiness and as commensurable to mans ability in state of Original righteousness Nay it is observable also that the word in St. Iames which is rendered shall offend is as diminutive a word in the kind as I think any other for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest Hindan and the rest of that sort should think that venial sinnes do but cast a little dust upon a Christians life no defilement And therefore to conclude upon the whole matter if the Scripture needs an infallible interpreter to distinguish betwixt counsels and precepts both given in the mood of command this makes no difficulty until counsels find better proof If they will take our counsel let them keep their counsel to themselves This we may say as litle to as he saies in it of new discourse N. 56. He speaks here again of the losse of Divine books This we have spoken to before more then once upon his provocation And this pincheth them for why may not they then faile of some traditions and how then can we depend upon the Church when the Church should have kept them since the Church as the learned of them say is to depend upon them But own thing here he would urge that according to us we must pick out points necessary one out of one Book another out of another Ans Surely this is no strong plea for first ought not the word of God dwel plentifully in us as the Apostle speaks 2. Cannot any own easily discern historical books from doctrinal 3. Can they not take special notice of those heads of doctrine or practice unto which salvation is expressely annexed 4. This argument concludes more heavily against them for depending upon the Church Who can compare all their books from age to age for their doctrin who can compare who hath been most learned and most faithful to derive a successional summe of things to be believed and to be done nay who in the compare of Churches can preferre the best but by the best doctrin and yet according to them we must take the doctrine from the Churches who can measure the vast latitude of the universal Church by those rules of Vincentius is it not easier to receive necessaries from Scripture then to boult them out of so many volumes of ages And how should we be sure of keeping received traditions when some traditions which were received are not yet kept by the Roman Church 5. In Scripture though we pick for necessaries yet we have nothing false but we have false traditions have we not yea this is a false tradition that traditions are equal to Scripture Yea 6. If any books be lost they were lost before Christs time and yet those which remained in St. Pauls time were able to make Timothie wise unto salvation And towards the reading of the Apocryphal books that so we may reade over the whole Canon it is a supposition in stead of proofe The reading of them in the Church doth not inferre their canonicalness of proper name and this is made good to them they know lately by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Cosins in a book on purpose And as for accurate noting all places and conferring with other places What then multa non experimur quia difficilia multa difficilia quia non experimur Is not this possible is not Salvation worth the paines must every one amongst them know the distinct exact sense of all their definitions no they will say but the people should seek the law at the Priests mouths Well then so is it not necessary to Salvation that the people with us should be able exactly to conferre all places and as for those places which contain necessaries there is not such obscurity And yet surely some hardness according to their principles doth belong to faith for how otherwise should it be supernatural and meritorious therefore if their way of beliefe be so easie it doth not beare proportion to the qualities of faith assigned by Mr. Knott And as for Translations to agree with the Originals this we have canvased before And our people can do it as well as theirs better too because they have liberty of translations And to the truth of originals we must come in several causes as Bellarmin before Omne reducitur ad principiun is good here too And then the consectary of these difficulties he would make to be negative to us namely that God did not intend this book to be our only guide And he would perswade us thus Gods wisedome directs him to the best meanes to compass his intention And then he would frame a minor with advantage thus even our ordinary wisedome if we had an
as the Hebrew doth and also the Greek and the Latin which two want not the Subjunctive Mood Ans But first he supposeth that which is in question that the Hebrew is to be understood as in the future Secondly other translations with him are fallible save only the Latin therefore the other conclude not Thirdly the translations may be understood in compliance with the Hebrew which is frequent also in the New Testament with the Greek and therefore if the Hebrew may be so construed so may the others by an Hebraism Therefore if our English translation were faulty herein yet must it be otherwise convinced of a fault in this Especially since Fourthly We give good reason why it should thus be construed namely by the Scope Intelligentia dicti sumitur ex scopo loquendi And therefore may we well with Iunius and Tremellius hold our English which in general whatsoever he saies of it from some of our own hath not so many faults in it as Isidor Clarius found in their Latin 8000. I asked him is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome He saies I told you it was not But why then should the other Text about the Scribes and Pharisees by proportion prove their infallibility and not this since we have here the Priest in a singularity if not signanter Well then by his own consent this Text is not sufficient for him for it concerns private Priests and they are as fallible as translations Onely the private Priests may know the sense of the Church better then the sense of Scripture by the translations as he speaks in more words to no more purpose Ans First when we have the sense of the Church are we sure that that sense is true though it be the true sense of the Church is the sense of the Church true this is yet in question There is no question but the sense of Scripture is true whether the sense of the Church is true is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Let the plain places of Scripture in things necessary be compared with the difficulties in the Interpretation of the Trental Definitions and then let them judge whether we had not better stand to Translations which are made by a Nation or approved or else to the opinion of private Priests for though her Doctrine be so carefully published amongst all intelligent men yet this is to be understood materially in the words not formally in the sense And so the Scripture is published amongst all intelligent men in the former way And if the people be not intelligent men too how shall they know whether the true sense of the Doctrine of the Church be communicated to them by learned men But the Priests of the old Law were to direct the people which were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures And the Priests of the new Law doubtless excel those of the old Law This in the substance of it we have had before and have taken away the grounds thereof And besides it is false that the people were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures What saith St. Luke of the Bereans If they examined by the Scriptures what Doctrine St. Paul taught were not they to be directed by their own readings of the Scripture And why did the Jews apply their children to the Law from five years of age And why did St. Paul take notice of Timothy to be trained up in the Scriptures from his childhood and why is the man said to be blessed who amongst other things meditates in the Law day and night Is this to be understood onely of the Priests 2. Therefore though they went to the Priests in doubtful cases yet not for ordinary knowledg in things necessary therefore this is not compared ad idem to our case Thirdly the Priests were bound to direct the people by the Law were they not To the Law and to the Testimonies And not by Tradition So are the Priests of the new Law as he calls them to direct the people by the Scripture not by Tradition or determinations of the Church unless according to Scripture Therefore his question of the case in a matter of doubt which he compares his proceeding in with the old way of the Jews Numb 6. comes not home to our business and therefore we may send it home again and yet not for fear of not being able to answer what he is not willing to urge that when in the upshot the question should be drawn up to the High Priest he who would not hear him was deservedly put to death Deut. 17. He leaves this for us to take down our selves he will not apply it and herein he does discreetly fearing it may be least it should be said that that which he would seem to have referred to the High Priest for final judgment should indeed be referred to the Judge contradistinctly spoken of and by the Syriack disjunctively to the Priests and Levits And 2. I hope the High Priest at Rome doth not undertake a sentence in causes of blood And thirdly in that case there was contempt thou shalt take away the evil it is not said errour and analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori analogato and also ver 12. this is intimated that man that will do presumptuously Fourthly Suppose it had been referred to the High Priest for sentence final this might be extraordinary in a Typical respect to Christ And they know the rule Extraordinaria non trahuntur in regulam We cannot make a rule of extraordinaries And yet also was not the High Priest quatenus talis Infallible as appears in the condemnation of Christ as I told them Now he would distinguish by saying The Jewish Church erred not The true High Priest without whom there is no true representative Church erred not Cajaphas was not the true High Priest the other true High Priest was Christ Prety sport So the Roman Church never erreth because Christ is the true Head but then the Pope should not be true High Priest nor true Head for so Caiaphas and he must be compared in relation to Christ May we not almost think that our Adversary is within a little put to his shifts For Christ was in being I hope and had declared himself the true Messias and yet he said the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair then we are bound to do all whatsoever is said to us without a true High Priest 2. How many Popes were not true Popes and so not true High Priests and then when shall we be certain whether we have a true High Priest and consequently a true Church and consequently that it cannot erre For as absolute infallibility hath it self to particular Faith in any point according to Mr. Knot So absolute certainty of a true Pope hath it self to our knowledg whether it cannot erre Well but he hath told us that he is the true Pope whom the Church shall accept So before but then Caiaphas was the
had been convenient that there had been no Scripture upon this consideration And how should they prove the Authority of the Church without Scripture Well but take his words in their ordinary sense and what kinde of argument will this be Even now when we have Scripture and Traditions therefore now Traditions are now as necessary or more then when there was no Scripture Nay they will seem to be less necessary when notwithstanding them we have more divisions How then shall these divisions be remedied It may be by more traditions What New traditions oppositum in apposito But in the next words he speaks out All divisions commonly caused by misinterpretation of the Scriptures to which inconvenience they were not subject before all Scripture was written And therefore in this respect there is now after the writing of the Scriptures a greater necessity then ever of Traditions Ans So then he hath now commented upon the former words and his sense is plain that had we not had Scripture we should have had less need of Traditions First we had thought the Learned men of their Church had devised Traditions not because we had Scripture but because Scripture was wanting in the matter of necessary doctrine And so he himself telles us presently after that since part of the Canon is lost we must say there is use of Traditions And yet now we have more need of Traditions because Scripture is written But it may be he will say there is more need of Traditions to clear the interpretations of Scripture Yea but then he should mean by Traditions Traditive interpretations of Scripture as they are called But are not these lost too For who is there can give us any account of them And as for other Traditions we are never a whit the better he hath told us before since notwithstanding we have them we have a perpetuall succession of horrible divisions opening still wider wider Let them remember that of Nâ—lus to accuse Scripture is to accuse God 2. Are the divisions necessary in points necessary If he means so it is flatly denied If in other points it is not to the question principal 3. A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia if we be bound to Tradition as such we are bound to all and yet all Traditions they have not kept 4. Traditions doe not lessen divisions about interpretation of Scripture for one division is whether Traditions have any ground in Scripture And he may know that he hath named Texts to this purpose and because there are differences about Traditions therefore by his argument we should not be ruled by them as indeed they do not order themselves by them They keep Tradition in the controversie for the use of the Church not in practice as he said Antiquitatem semper crepant novi indies vivunt and we must let goe the Scripture in controversie and practice for the use of Tradition and the Church they and their Fathers have troubled the waters of Scripture for the cheif Fisher Let them let their Traditions alone and they will see their discourse is a non causa Then he repeats importunately the uses of Traditions but not my refutation And he speaks of Traditions of such matter as we have in Scripture which is beside the mark we are about Traditions in their sense of that matter which is not in Scripture equally to be believed to Scripture which should prove the insufficiency of Scripture and the necessity of them This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore much he saies to this purpose is like the drift of snow which makes an heap but will not bear one up from sinking in it Yet I must note his wit in that he saies that God must purposely by a miracle have infringed the course of nature if the former Traditions of the Church should grow then to lose their sufficiency in order to the same effect when they were strengthened by so great an Authority as that of the sacred writers was How little in this is there of a sober soul As if the matter of Tradition was written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to confirm the authority of delivering it by orall Tradition Doth it not appear in Eccles History that the matter of the New Testament was written that it might be more certain and firm in the minds of men It seems then that the looser way by Tradition was not so sure and standing litera scripta manet Secondly If there be so great an Authority of the sacred writers surely we may make more use of what they wrote to confirm Traditions Adeone pudorem cum pudicitia perdiderunt as he said that the Authority of the sacred writers should be imployed as it were onely to serve Tradition Thirdly The Authority of the sacred Writers did rather confirm the truth of them than the use for why were they written if Traditions were necessary after they were written as such Therefore fourthly He concludes but sufficiency of them in order to the effect but this is not effectual to his purpose If he did conclude necessity of them after the writing this would be somewhat but then there would be more in the conclusion than is in the premises and yet surely all were nothing to the state of the question because we make no question of such Traditions Again he pleadeth losse of the Canon upon which he thinks Tradition should revive Ans That we have spoken of sufficiently before that the supposal doth not inferre insufficiency of the Canon and therefore doth not inferre necessity of Traditional matter beside what is written And also is there yet notwithstanding the losse of some part of Scripture enough remaining to confirm Traditions yes they will say Then God it seems hath taken more care for Traditions than Salvation there is enough for Traditions yet in Scripture not for Salvation Well but again there is enough in Scripture to confirm all Traditions is there not If there be then there is enough for Salvation or else there was not enough in Traditions Because they will say Scripture hath confirmed all Traditions to the Jew namely And then if there was enough to the Jew for Salvation in the Old Testament which was adaequate to Tradition then much more have we enough for Salvation by the New Testament and therefore is there no need of any Tradition beside the Canon Then he returns to an enarration of the use of Traditions even after writing which is of no use to them but to us because here he produceth several Texts for Traditions in the same notion as 2. Thes 2. Gal. 1.8 Tim. 2.2 2. and herein he prevaricates in his own cause For if these Texts be meant of such Traditions which were afterwards written in the matter of them they are so understood as we would have them to be understood and they are not pertinent to the question about Traditions beside Scripture in the matter of them Secondly Whereas he speaks that these
Texts confirm the certainty of Traditions we grant it namely of those Traditions which were afterwards written but how do these Texts confirm the certain necessity of those that are not written And therefore thirdly He is mightily disappointed if he conceives those Texts should bind us to stand upon Traditions now more than ever for the formality of Tradition was there sunk in the writing and the matter of Tradition was the same with that which was writtten in his own confession unless he drives the Texts Heterogeneously to his own words And he impingeth upon the same stone again What wise man would put â—ut one light costing him nothing because it will be shining of its own nature unless you will needs have iâ— hidden because he hath now another light but so that even with both those lights many of his houshold will still remain iâ— darkness Ans He supposeth a light added to a light It is well then that Scripture is assured to be one light but his Tradition should be compared to a light when there is no other light namely when the Scripture is defective Secondly If he thinks Tradition is a light costing us nothing he may be deceived for it will cost a great deal of Scrutiny since we cannot see it shining of its own nature infallibly And thirdly If some be still in darknese with both those lights then surely they may be more in darkness with but one and that is Tradition therefore they should allow the people the light of the Scripture since both too little as he saies to some But fourthly What if one light put out the other in the true state of the question namely Scripture Tradition superadded in matter And what wise man will light a straw candle in the Fathers expression when the Sun shines the Sun-light of Scripture puts out the straw-light of Traditions condemning those who teach for Doctrines Traditions of men which the Romanist does in some proportion And fifthly what wise man would have such a light which serves his turn best when it shines least for Traditions if we believe our Adversaries are a covered dish dainties to be kept private for those who are fit to receive them the more wise and perfect men which may teach them to others The mystery of Salvation that is made common by writing but the mystery of Tradition is put under a bushel The mystery of the Trinity is delivered in Scripture but the mystery of the Trent Traditions must not be familiarly known So then say they what they will or can we shall sooner find an extinguisher for the light of the rush candle than they for the light of the Sun But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us we should have had a more certain Tradition given us So he delivers my words which were not so but thus If Scripture had not been left to us we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us as the Gospel was before it was written Now some difference there is betwixt given us and left us for that which is left to us is intended for our constant use which that which is given doth not connotate So some Pontificians will say the Scripture was given upon particular occasion but was not left to the Church as a fixed universal rule But there is yet more betwixt us about my words we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us so I said he reports me thus we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us A more certain Tradition given and a Tradition more certainly conveighed are not altogether the same the former supposeth the matter of Tradition as not certain and this we can deny as to those times when there was no Scripture as written the other speaks de modo tradendi which comes closer to our question For we can perswade our selves that God who is graciously provident for his Church wherein he hath placed his Name would have taken care that if there had not been a certain direction in writing the matter of necessary Doctrine and practice should have been more certainly communicated to us So then he thrives very little by compare of the Christian Church with the Jewish although the Christian Church be more noble For first the compare must be of the Jewish with the whole Christian Church because the Jewish Church Proselyts being included therein namely Proselyts of the Covenant as they were distinguished was all the Church there was And secondly Because no part of the whole Church can compare with the Jewish Church as to priviledges and then by this reckoning how little of Nobility will fall to their share Thirdly As the Tradition which was it whereby the matter of Scripture was proposed was for the time necessary before the matter of Scripture was written so also must the Tradition of the Christian Church be considered as in relation to the time before which the matter of the New Testament was written therefore he should have pleaded if he would have it done patly that there was any Tradition of Faith after the Old Law was written beside what was written which was to be believed unto Salvation equally to what was written and then have drawn down a parallel Line of proportion of the same though he would have more nobility for the Christian Church Thirdly If the nobleness of a Church be antecedent to more certain Tradition as he thinks then how happened it that there was so little a time betwixt the preaching of the Gospel and the writing of it It seems then if God provides for Churches according to the nobleness of them that the better provision for the Church is by Scripture The Christian then hath a more certain way of Faith than by Tradition And as for means of securing Tradition in the Christian Church which he compares with the Jewish in he hath no cause to bragg For first they cannot say or prove that they have all Traditions in number formal and material Secondly They do not practice all How many are there which St. Basil speaks of in his Tract de Sp. Sanct. which they observe not Thirdly The safety of them is in the whole Church and yet forsooth every one must not know them Fourthly If so then have they reason to blush that they have been more careful to keep Tradition than Scripture and particularly of the Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew and is this for their credit Fifthly Are the Scriptures preserved uncorrupt or not If not how have they been faithful as before If so then why do their learned men obtrude the Authentiqueness of their Latin upon this account that when this Edition was made the Scriptures were pure and uncorrupted but corrupted since Again the Tradition of Christ's Primitive Church before the Scripture was written and sufficiently promulged was to be believed upon her sole Authority Ans If he takes that Tradition inclusively to the Apostles who preached that which they did write
afterwards and take Tradition for the matter of what was written we grant it if but he takes tradition of the primitive Church to be that which was derived to after times and was not written we deny it to be believed upon her sole Authority In the former sense it is true but not pertinent in the latter pertinent but not true And indeed this was the notion of Traditions for the first times namely to be that sâ—â—â—â—e of doctrine which did comprehend the materialls of faith 〈◊〉 to be any thing different from Scripture or diverse 〈…〉 first of the Gal. 8. doth not signifie contra but praeâ—â—â— from Scripture So he will finde Irenaeus to mean it And so St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his 5. Cat. 117. p of the gr last Ed. makes it to be upon account no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the System out of the Holy Scriptures about every of those things conteined And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for things of faith were not composed as it pleased men but the most pertinent things being gathered out of all Scripture do make up the doctrine of faith And again as the seed of mustard in a little grain doth contein many branches so faith it self in few words doth comprehend the knowledge of piety that is in the old and new Testament And what followes but that text which he my adversary named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see therefore Brethren and hold the Traditions So then if he takes Tradition in the first sense the Church was infallible therein by the Apostles if in the second the Tradition was infallibly Scripture and the Church believed it upon that account And that Traditions did not bind either in their own virtue or without Scripture they may see in St. Basil who yet speaks much for them So in the seventh ch of the Holy Ghost where speaking of the controversie whethre they were to say of the Son of God with whome or by whome he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. this is not sufficient to us that it is a Tradition of the Fathers for even they did follow the will of Scripture having taken principles out of testimonies which a little before we proposed to you out of Scripture God therefore said by his Apostles that the Traditions then were infallible being in matter the same with what they wrote for their Authority Now if God said this shall we upon his fallible discourse for even Councils are fallible in their discourse come to say the Church's Traditions are further infallible then agreeable to his word though God never said so and never yet expressed any such infallibility of the Church And thus I return him his own words mutatis mutandis And so my Argument out of Irenaeus is not yet refuted Neither doth he take away my use of Irenaeus testimony in the next paragr For as to my Argument what he saies is not appliable It was thus out of his Authority If the Scripture had not been left to us we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us as the Gospel was before it was written but the Scripture is now left to us therefore no need of certain conveighance of tradition to us This Syllogism he makes no offer of answer to for that which he saies in a Parenthesis though you cannot invent the means by which Tradition should have been conveighed more certainly supposing there had been no Scripture I can receive without prejudice to my Argument for whatsoever Hypothetically should have been done had not there been Scripture yet now since we have Scripture we have no such need of we now dispute upon the fact not against the supposition Therefore from the dint of the ratiocination he digresseth to an observation of disrespect in me to St. Irenaeus because I said Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely onely upon Tradition Ans He is in this deceived To assent to Tradition in the matter of it and not to assent to the matter upon the sole Authority of Tradition are not such opposites as he imagines for they may well agree Therefore though the Father said they did assent to Tradition as to the matter yet not by Tradition as the manner Tradition was the objectum materiale not the objectum formale of their Faith And the next words as he also perhibits the Fathers words do defend my answer having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost So then they were assured of the Doctrine of Salvation by the Holy Ghost then they did not believe that Tradition upon the sole Authority of the Church So this contradicts my Adversary and makes for me not onely by consequence because it is against him but directly for then we can as well be assured of Scripture by the Holy Ghost have no such need then of the authority of the Church as to salvation though the church were infallible which is one of the things to be proved and cannot And yet besides this tradition in the sense of the Father was in the matter of it Scripture and therefore hath no consanguinity with the true state of the question So then we may conclude in the negative they did not rely upon or believe upon the sole account of that very tradition yet if they had it would not conclude against our cause because that tradition is not the same with what belongs to the question To be civil to an Adversary in this number N. 14. all the sense of it may be resolved into this discourse If the radition of the Church testifying her own infallibility in proposing for Gods Word that which she delivereth for Gods word be to be believed then she is to be believed as proposing that to be Gods Word which is not written Ans This hath been abundantly agitated before with our indemnity to the Plaintiffe but since he repeats I do not And we answer First the consequence is not clear especially if we extend it to that which is not grounded in Scripture if he understands it of that which is grounded in Scripture it is not proper to the question As to that which is not grounded in Scripture we may still deny the major Tradition universal of the Church may be worthy of assent as to the truth of Scripture to be the Word of God and not so of that which is delivered beside Scripture which also is held by others against them and the reason is not yet disproved because there was more necessity of the Faith of Scripture than that which is delivered beside Scripture and therefore may we well suppose a greater assistance to the proposing of Scripture than any thing diverse Deus non deficit in necessariis Why do they assert infallible assistance to General Councils not to private Doctors or to a National Council Namely because others are to be directed by the General Councils well then the Church universal might be more assisted for the proposing of
Scripture than for any thing else But then I deny the minor the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility is not worthy of an infallible assent It may be worthy of the highest degree of moral assurance yet not of an iâ—fal ible assent No Authority can write as to Conscience what a king writes as to civil credit teste me ipso but that which is immediatly divine And why then do the Pontificians prove the Authority of the Church by Scripture The Church without Scripture is not yet Christned if we take Scripture for the substance of the matter it will be but the highest form of Heathens And therefore the Scripture is to be believed antecedently to the Church And how little his examples have proved the minor we have seen even as much as he had cause to conclude against me out of my own words thus Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten is of equal Authority to Scripture The Traditions we stand upon be matters of Faith truly once delivered by our Saviour or his Apostles though the Revelation were not written by them therefore this is of equal Authority to Scripture even according to your own words Surely it is easier to answer this than to forbear the Person The proposition was not my words I hope categorically spoken but as being the state of the question if those Traditions be in the matter beside Scripture And now he takes this to be my affirmation simply And then we deny his minor too because that which they stand upon is not matter of Faith as being not revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles or truly delivered by either for they are uncertain by which And if they will urge that Text St. Iohn the 16.22 as Bellarmin does they may think that many things might be written afterwards or were not points of Faith And this Text hereticks have urged and therefore by my Adversaries Logique he should not And did St. Austin think that any could soberly say that the points of difference were of that number Or did any of the Saints in Heaven see what they were in speculo Trinitatis and did send down word thereof As for his defence of the exception which he took against the Scriptures being a sufficient rule to us N. 15. because neither the Apostles nor their Successours took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages as all or the greater part of them could understand my answer is yet good the care was taken in that the new Testament was written in Greek which was a common language then And this I gave an Argument of in that the Grecian is contradistinguished to the Jew in the New Testament And therefore the Greek must be the greatest and most famous part and therefore the language common this proof he is not pleased to meddle with at all Another proof that that was the common Language was that of Tully for Archias the Poet Graeca per totum orbem leguntur This he takes notice of And he saies and so is Virgil in Latin But this doth not contradict me yea he gives me a corroboration of my Argument for whom did Virgil imitate Theocritus in his Eglogues Hesiod in his Georgicks Homer in his Aeneids Yea Horace had read the Greeks it seems by his Grecisms Yea Terence was so conversant in Menander that he was called Menander dimidiatus But he saies This is to be understood thus that the most learned sort of men every where read Greek and Virgil. Ans This supposed is not exclusive to the Greeks being the common Language as to others since he will think the Latin was common to the people then and yet the most learned read Virgil. And did not all those Nations whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles to understand Greek Did he write onely to the most learned In what Language was the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Hebrews for the Roman Church confesseth that this Epistle also was written by St. Paul written were they not both written in Greek yea the Jews that used the Septuagint Translation were many So Philo the Jew and Marcus Antonius the Roman wrote in Greek And therefore that which was spoken by the Oratour was spoken without any such Hyperbole He saies yet further either this must be spoken in way of a notable amplification or Scripture must be denied because even between the two Cities of Antioch and Constantinople the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus Cappadocia Asia minor Phrygia Pamphilia all which Nations the Scripture Act. 2. testifieth to have had different Languages Ans Though the Scripture speaks of them as distinguished in speech yet not in Language but dialect and so it is expressed ver 6.8 And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be restrained as to those who had several dialects therefore whereas he saies the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus c. If he means that the common Dialect of the Greek was not used by them all this is not much to be stood upon because it is not reasonable to say that those who spake several Dialects did not understand the common Greek for take them all Attique Jonique Dorique Aeolique and Baeotique they differ ordinarily but in terminations or pronunciation from the common Within that compass is also Galatia which St. Jerom testifieth to have had a language somwhat like those of Trevers An. It is as farre from Thebes to Athens as from Athens to Thebes is it not Then that of Trevers must be as neer that of greek as that of the Galatians which was greek in St. Pauls time If afterwards the language altered or was corrupted this doth not contradict us because we must distinguish times And therefore yet it remains good that the greek was understood of the greater part of the world and therefore the Apostles took care to have the knowledge of the Gospel to be commonly understood And if they had not God did miraculously by the gift of the Holy Ghost sub forma visibili in the second of the Acts in the gift of tongues And this concludes against their Latin service as also St. Paul discourseth and concludeth against it in the first Ep. Cor. 14. And though we cannot tell the time when the Scripture can first be shewed to have been thus communicated to the people of severall languages what is this to the purpose If it had not been done afterwards it is enough to us that the Apostles did write in the most common language for those times And if it had not been done it should have been done But that it was done appears seasonably in the great Bible Neither can they tell us or will when the vulgar Latin began first to be Authentique whether under Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth In the beginning he tells me that I moved a question how the people should clearly know the true Tradition from the false Ans I did
move this question but somwhat else was annexed which he saies nothing to Well to this he now answers first they could know this better then know true Scripture from false for they could not do that but by knowing first the true Tradition recommending the true Scripture from the false tradition recommending the false Ans First this hath been often denied him that the ultimate resolution of faith in the true Scripture is not Tradition this may lead us to the gate of the Temple but this does not open the doore of faith 2. That Tradition which makes an inducement is of the universall not Roman Church 3. How shall we know true tradition but by the true Church How shall we know the true Church but by Scripture therefore we must know the true tradition from the false by the Scripture which contradicts his method And he saies they could do this as well or better than their fore-Fathers for many hundred of years yea for two thousand yea for twice two thousand years together Answ First they see then their error in defining Faith so strictly to be an infallible assent since they here stand upon a comparative certainty if so which amounts not to the consistence of faith Secondly He supposeth that which is not to be supposed that their fore-fathers were determined in their faith of the word of God by Tradition Even now or a litle before he said Tradition was estalished to the Jew by Scripture Now Tradition is that which must discerne and consequently stablish Scripture 3. It appears that as Scripture is more perfect then Tradition because otherwise God had gone the worst way namely from that which is more perfect to that which is less perfect namely from Tradition to the writing of his word but that which is less pefect cannot establish that which is more perfect Therfore neither then nor now could Scripture receive the blessing of establishment from that which is inferiour 4. In the times of the law there was no other Church to vie with the Jewes about Traditions And therefore they might be more certain of true Traditions But now there are several national Churches which may pretend superiority of tradition or tradition of superiority as the Roman doth and therefore it is not so sure a way to fixe our last foot upon Tradition 5. Universal Tradition of all times and places which only weighs in this cause is not in other things for them nor in that canon supernumerary of theirs and therefore let them either retract the argument or take it Yet he will be confident of two Traditions whereof the efficacie is commended with perpetuall profession and answerable practice dayly occurring Baptism of Infants and praier for the faithfull eparted The first of these we have abundantly examined before and he does here most insist upon the latter assigning also his reason of more practice of this last Because they baptize Infants but once but they pray â—ften for the same man who is dead And then being more practised it is more confirmed which Cressie also urgeth Ans As for Paedobaptism here he doth not prove it to be a Tradition unless this be a true proposition that whatsoever is commended with perpetual profession and answerable practice daly accurring is only delivered by Tradition Tradition is such but all that is such is not Tradition Therefore that proposition denied And for what he saies towards both before that the Apostles did only by unwritten Tradition clearly and undeniably teach the baptizing of Children and praier for the faithfull departed it is not clear that it is undeniable and therefore clearely and undeniably it is denied Baptism of Infants hath not yet lost sufficient ground in Scripture to keep it from a necessity of being named Tradition as he should have shewed And as to the other praier for the dead we answer first it seemes then it is but a Tradition and they will pradon us if we speak thus diminutively of it And whether this will please all the Roman Doctors that it should have no footing in Scripture let it be none of our care 2. For the object of persons whom they praied for question would be made what morally they were who were to be praied for but this he tells us he saies they were the faithfull Well but all the faithfull I suppose It may be they will say yes If not let them give us a reason of their distinction according to Tradition If so then praier for the dead doth not inferr purgatory which they intend in the praier for the dead And the reason of the consequence is proved because praier was made for all the faithfull and some of them went up to Heaven per saltum as they will also confess namely Apostles and Martyrs and yet these were also prayed for in order to a joyful resurection And indeed the antient praiers for the dead did respect their bodies in the grave to be raised up at the resurrection not their soules to be raised out of Purgatory after a plenary satisfaction And what meanes St. Austin in Tract In Iohannem 49. unus quisque cum causa sua dormiet cum causâ suâ resurget And some of their own have lately in this differed from them Neither had the Roman Church with their infallibility perswaded the Greek Church hereof in Nilus's time who hath a learned discourse against it And thirdly as for Inscriptions upon the Graves whereby he would make a prescription for the tradition we say two things First that we must have them to be shewed to be so antient as to have been universally used in the Primitive times and then secondly that they were used upon the Roman account And as for Aerius who onely as he saies denied praying for the dead to be accounted for this his opinion an Heretick by St. Austin and St. Epiphanius they must somewhat excuse us for this absolutely is not right for their turn if true First not right for their use because he might deny prayers and oblations for the dead in the former respect namely for a joyful resurrection and this comes not up to the state of the point wherein we differ namely whether prayer for the dead was a tradition in their sense as inferring Purgatory But 2. Neither is it absolutely true that Aerius was accounted an Heretique for this opinion exclusively to other opinions of his as my Adversaries words import However he meant them I will pinch it Either he means for this opinion only or for this opinion with other opinions If for this opinion concurrently with others this derogates from the common sense of his words and from his use too because if he was accounted an heretique for severall opinions it may be some of them were not heretical opinions and then it cannot be said that he was for every of them accounted an heretick unless we could make some to be heresies which are not heresies and this would be a contradiction Well then I
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
doth now infallibly teach the Church in all definitions And then a second that it is his duty to do so Let them learn their duty not to tell God his duty Did the Holy Ghost do his duty when Cajaphas and the Assembly condemned Christ And why did not the Holy Ghost make eight hundred Bishops in Ariminum as infallible without a Pope as the forty Bishops in the Trent Council whereof some might be made Bishops not because they did not differ from the rest but that they might not differ in the Roman Faith though against the Catholique faith And if they put the difference in this compare upon a Pope in Trent Council none in Ariminum though that answer will not serve as before since Praelats have a also a power of calling Councils as my Adversary before in some cases why should not the Holy Ghost rather assist eight hundred Praelats without a Pope then forty with As to the eighth answer he confesseth the substance of it that for the first three hundred yeares there was no General Council and tells us the cause for persecution no Council could be gathered But this satisfieth not God is not wanting in necessaries nor abundant in superfluities as one of theirs saies If councils had been allwaies necessary he could have provided against persecutions or for a Council notwithstanding And why not in time of persecutions as well as in the times of the Apostles Were not those times of persecution Neither is that a sufficient reason because all this time the former doctrine of the Apostles remained so fresh and so notoriously the Tradition of the Church diffused and there remained also so universal a respect and obedience to the Chief Bishop of the Church Ans these three causes will not make one sound one For by the first he means the known doctrine of the Apostles as delivered in writing or not if so then why may not we by the same cause sufficiently be directed by the word written And as to the second if he joyns Tradition of the Church as notoriously diffused as a social mean of the direction it may be denied upon this account only here for that other Traditions of Heretiques were then mingled in the Church with pretense of coming from the Apostles And therefore the Traditions of the Church was notoriously not distinguished And as to the third it is notoriously false that then there was a chief Bishop in their sense in those times For how then could equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be appointed in the Nicene Council if the Bishop of Rome had been Chief before how could St. Cyprian have said that all the Apostles were equall pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis How could the African Council have then cut off appeals to Rome Then had there been no need of the feigning of a Canon to this purpose in the Nicene Council How could St. Ierom have said that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in communi in his Epistle to Evagrious Neither was there such obedience then performed by them to the Praelats in all places as may appear by the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians where he speaks of great Schisms And also by Ignatius his earnest exhortations of submission to them Whence the Quartodecim ani although they opposed nothing clearely set down in Scripture were judged Heretikes for opposing the doctrin of the first Church made evidently known by fresh Tradition Ans First if they will believe their Alphonsus de castro they were not sententially declared Heretikes because they were excommunicated Indeed Victor would have excommunicated then fecisset nisi Irenaeus illum ob hoc redarguisset he would have done it if Irenaeus had not chid him for this By the way then was this also obedience to the chief Bishop to chide him So Alphons in his 12. b. de haer In verbo pascha Yea 2. They may know that Eusebius doth give an account of the Asian observation to come from as good Tradition as the the other And surely the Asian Church was therfore the western and therefore was it not the doctrin of the first Church Yea also by the way how was Tradition of the Church notoriously diffused when there was Tradition against Tradition And herein also did the Brittish Churches which Tertullian speakes of differ from the western following the Eastern Church 3. Heresie is some times largely taken and doth then respect Schism of proper name and so in a large sense it might by some be called Heresie although the matter of difference was no doctrin of faith Ex verbis male prolatis oritur Haeresis So Hereticks in a propriety of speech they could not be 14. Alphonsus doth distinguish here upon in the same place and saies they were accounted Hereticks not because they did simply observe it then sed quia ita esse necessario faciendum credebant And this then alters the case And he explains himself further because this did include a necessity of observeing Judaical ceremonies even after Christ's his coming And so then this was contrary to the word written And then this was not a Tradition 5. They here shew the pride of Rome to offer to cut off from her comunion all those who were of the other perswasion who were not few as may be seen in Eusebius's 5. B. 24.5 Ch. for a thing simply of free observation wherein difference makes no variance a◠Irenaeus sent word to their Victor ch 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference of a fast and so of a feast doth commend the agreement of faith He goes on now as the Church could want Councils for so many years so it could want Councils for the short space of schism Right But then so can it want Councils still and therefore God hath not bound us over to the Church for our absolute direction upon necessity of Salvation Councils are necessary to infallible direction so my Adversaries hold The Church for three hundred years and in time of a Schism can want Councils as my Adversary here so then there is no absolute necessity of their infallibility And indeed there was much need of Councils in that space of the first three hundred years in regard of Divisions as since and then if God provided sufficiently for his Church without them he can and will do so still And this is confirmed by my Adversary by these words of his for the neccessity of new declarations is not so frequent at least in any high degree of necessity calling for instant remedy and remedy of this nature only And he may goe on and say it not upon my opinion but for himself and ex animo that Scripture alone will remedy this necessity He needed not to put in you say And as to that which he saies that there remained many definitions oft former councils and Traditions of the Church which alone served Gods church these we have spoken to sufficiently before Either the Definitions were concluded out of principles
But first The Church Universal doth not say it Secondly who of them hath proved that the Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they bear witness of themselves therefore their testimony is not true not in modo if it were true in materia Thirdly What the Church can say amounts but to a prudential motive or congruous inducement but what is it which grounds Faith and binds Faith and makes it a divine belief if not what is said in Scripture Without this what is the Church but a company of men in naturalibus The Roman doth not so much believe this or that because God saies it but they believe God saies it because the Church saies it But the Church virtual in the Pope Representative in a Council diffusive in the people signifies nothing without religion The question then is what religion makes the Church which we are to believe Not reason satisfies us in this because some principles of Religion do transcend reason and because reason cannot by its principles produce Faith of proper name then we must have somwhat which is supposed as a common principle whereby true Religion is discerned Not the Church For the question is which is the Church What then but Scripture Let them then think upon the former Texts for sufficiency of Scripture which if they were acknowledged would save us this dispute And let them think upon that Text Esa the 8. the 20. To the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them That which is referred to another for direction is subordinate thereunto The Church is referred to the Law and to the Testimony therefore it is subordinate If they speak not according to this word as written it is because there is no light in them Another Text may be named 1. Epist of St. Peter the 1. ch 23. ver Being born again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever So the Apostle from whence we thus argue That which is begotten of the Word is subordinate to it the Church is begotten by the Word Therefore their argument is retorted by the contrary For the Word in the substance of it must be before the Church because the Church is begotten by the Word therefore the Church must depend upon the Word which liveth and abideth for ever and this better suits the standing charracter of Scripture than the loose and fluent or fluxive way of Tradition And how comes Tradition into the world By the first Church they will say Well and how came the first Church to be such What did they joyn together in the profession of Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some say the world came together by the casual concurrence of Atoms The first Church viritim was begottten by the Word through the Spirit so in the ver before seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit Then all is to be resolved into the Word quod est primum in generatione est ultimum resolutione So Aquinas Omne reducitur ad principium All is to be reduced to the first principles Therefore they will never reconcile St. Paul and Irenaeus unless they admit my distinction of the Church Then that which Frenaeus saith will well agree with that of St. Paul St. Paul saies as we commonly read it the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth St. Irenaeus saith the Scripture is the Pillar of truth Both agree for subordinata non pugnant Subordinates make no warre Let them not therefore tell me that what God tells me by his Church I am to admit this we admit But let them tell me how I shall infallibly know that he tells me so by the Church And let them tell me how I shall know the Church but by letters of credence namely in Scripture How can I divine whether there is to be a Chureh and which is the true Church and which the true Religion without Scripture And Nemo tenetur derinare as the saying So that that which he saies that the Church is first believed independently on Scripture dependâ— neither upon Scripture nor Catholick Church nor reason Take Scripture in the matter of it and that which he saies hath no consistency In saving Religion there is nothing before it not only in signo rationis but also in time because the Church is begotten of the word of God We deny not that the Church is made use of to dispose us to faith of Scripture but this doth not resolve us because it self of it selfe resolvs but into a moral capacity which makes not faith properly called not faith Divine therefore in Genere Credibilium the first proposition to the Church is that the Scripture is the word of God and without its testimonies of the Church it cannot be said to be credible in the sense of divine faith Therefore if he meanes that the Church is first believed independently on Scripture namely upon the account of humane faith we may grant it of the universal Church but what is this to our purpose since we are disputing about faith divine If he takes it of divine faith this would be to purpose but that it is not true Yet he proceeds So he that begins to be a Christian cannot admit of Scripture as men admit of the first principles of sciences Ans Nor do we say so Ordinarly he begins with prudential motives from without he useth arguments drawn from out of Scripture but the question is whether these motives are productive of Faith in him And he seems to say as much as deâ—â—ses it because he saies in respect of us the Church is first believed independently of Scripture So then the way by the Church is imperfect as the way of knowledge by those things which are more known quoad nos But in the way of Faith which makes the assent more firm and certain we must begin with Scripture upon which the Church depends To joyn issue then We at first lead men to the Faith of Scripture by the way of the Church as the Samaritans were led to Christ by the voice of the woman But Faith doth not rest here because they who deny the Scripture may deny the Church and may question its credibility Therefore since the Authority of the Church doth de se terminate its self in the Testimony of men we would have our Faith by such a way as is proportionable to it which if it be Faith divine must rely upon some divine Authority And this way the Scripture must be more known than the Church because by the Scripture we know the Church in a distinct knowledge And without it can be no more than an Individuum vagum Surely it is Scripture which makes Individuum demonstrativum And they are wont to prove it determinatum as in Petrus by the Scripture And as for the Criticism in the forenamed Text of Scripture to Timothy about the
buckler it is enough to us that he cannot or does not prove it But then 2. He is wanting in another thing because he doth not produce his reasons against our reasons let them draw the Sword and cut the knots if they cannot unty them Let them bring forth their strong reasons as the Prophet speakes When as then he saies bring against my illimited Text another Text limiting we say that the cause and our office is upon the negative until he brings another Text for his sense or gives reason for it or gives us the consent of all ages of the Church we have nothing more to thinke besides what hath been said then that he had reason to say more then what follows the necessity of the people which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infalliblity was greater in ages remoter from Christ But this was answered to by retortion that then Traditions it seemes now are not to be accounted equally certain And he answers now that which he had better have kept in He saies now it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles was crucified did rise again then it was presently after these thinges happened yet all these things be as infallibly true now as they were then and as infallible so I say of traditions which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty Ans Traditions then were but equall to Scripture Traditions now are not equall to Traditions then Therefore they are not now equall to Scripture And this spoyles their Traditions and contradicts the Trent Council which determins that they are to be received Pari pietatis affectu And so hath he lost his hold of Traditions by his own words Neither will it save him to say that they are now as infallible as then in themselves but not to us for so is the Scripture infallible in it self without the Church as they confess but it doth not so appear to us they say 2. They are to make good if they can degrees of infallible assistance by the least degree of infallibility But to goe on what if there be no such necessity c. Ans He seemes to be towards a punctum reflexionis here well if there be no such necessity of equall assistance then my answer to such Texts is the better And then let them take the rule which their own do use Deus non deficit in necessaris nec abundat in superfluis God doth not abound in things superfluous nor is wanting in things necessary But then also if it be not necessary why have my adversaries so much pleaded the necessity of an infallible judge Indeed it might be if God had pleased and yet not necessary by necessity of consequent but they are wont to prove it to be because it is necessary He goes on Did not the Church alone serve to decide all controversies before the Scripture was written c. We answer as often before The Church is not thence concluded infallible put it into forme that which decides all controversies is infallible the Church before Scripture was written did decide all controversies Therefore it is infallible No. We first deny the proposition That which decides all controversies decides them infallibly does not follow This cannot be proved less will not serve them Then 2. To the assumption we can deny it it did not decide all controversies put case it did decide all necessary controversies yet not all controversies And we must have a judge they say to decide all controversies whatsoever And 3. If the Church then before Scripture was written did decide all controversies whatsoever then surely there is not that assistance infallible now given to the Roman Church because notwithstanding they have the Scripture and Traditions yet they cannot decide all controversies If they can they are not faithfull and then that of St. Cyprian is not due to them now that perfidia non potest habere accessum If they cannot where is the equall assistance and then also what was decided by the Church was decided by the Scripture in the substance of it though not then written so that he had no cause to contradistinguish this decision of the controversies to the use of Scripture Again he saies did not the old Scripture testifie as much as was necessary that Iesus Christ was the true Messias Yes to what end then was Iohn Baptist sent to testifie this Ans First if the old Scripture did sufficiently testifie of the Messias then that which I have said concerning the sufficiency of the whole Canon is surely sufficient if it did not sufficiently testifie then his argument is none 2. There is not par ratio for the adding infallibility to the Church after the Canon is consigned as for St. Iohns testimony notwithstanding the old Scripture More might be requisit for the settling of the Primitive Church then after because the Church after was to be grounded in the Primitive But he saies there is as good reason In ages after the first when the Church should grow from a grain of mustard seed c. This proves nothing unless there might arise such a controversie which could not upon Salvation be decided without an infallible Judge Let them prove this and they will say somthing If not this will not be to the purpose that several controversies in such a space might arise And would not the same number of necessary points material and formal serve as many more thousands of Christians And those controversies which he names we have spoken to nay when they have as they suppose an infallible Judge are all controversies ended Let them bethink themselves what differences amongst them are yet dependent as before We waite therefore for the proof of such a promise of assistance extended to infallibility for other ages of the Church It is not enough for him to say why might not Christ for any thing you know thinke this a sufficient reason A posse in the premises will not make an actuality in the conclusion 2. there is a difference betwixt a reason after the thing is apparent and a reason to prove the thing to be if they can soundly prove to us that there is such an assistance given in promise to the Church in all ages then we should sooner be induced to the acknowledgment of his reason But there is nothing in the reason till the reason prove the thing 3. If words in Scripture were to be taken allwaies simply according to the termes what need would there then be of an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture Therefore let them chuse which they will do whether they will allwaies have Scripture meant according to the uppermost import of the letter if so then the sense of Scripture is plain which they have denied if not then may they admit a limitation of that assistance spoken of Matthew 28.3 This forme of modality why might not should not one would think become the high mode of infallible assistance
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
finde in my heart not to say a word to them that you might see I do not give them that respect as to the Fathers And yet take the strength of all their authorities together and make of them an accumulative argument as we may speak yet they do not conclude your cause Calvin and his Schollar in their sayings affirm no more then that which we acknowledge not from them that the Church shall by the assistance of the Spirit be sufficiently furnished with necessary Doctrine unto Salvation but those of the Church invisible may be saved though the Church visible be not Infallible and by consequence not the ground of Faith As for Doctor Saravia's passage I answer it doth not come up close to your purpose The H. G. which beareth rule in the Church objectively is the true Interpreter of Scripture and thus it is not for you And if you understand the Church objectively yet first the matter he seems to speak to is of Discipline about Government of the Church depending upon Primitive Example but we are upon points of Faith Secondly He cannot be contrary to himselfe when he acts as he did formerly in the time of the Apostles but whether he doth so act now is a question yea no question Thirdly If you will with him and from him draw the Government of the Church to be proportionably Episcopal with all my heart I reject them that reject it And your Adversaries of Wittenberg confesse nothing for you The rule they speak of namely Prophetical and Apostolical preaching c. it is the Word of God written according to which she is bound to interpret those places which are obscure and to judge of Doctrines according to the rule which she hath received so as her Interpretations are to be agreeable to the analogy of Faith and her judgements of Doctrines to be made according to the Law of the Word namely harder places are to be expounded by those which are more plain and Controversies to be decided by that rule And all this makes nothing for you For thus the Scripture is the Rule ruling and the Church is but the Rule ruled And thus we follow the Church as the Church followes the rule as Saint Paul saith Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ in the first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11. v. 1. Or if those Lutherans mean by a certain rule any rule distinguished from Scripture it is to be understood of some general heads of Christian Doctrine in proportion whereunto doubtfull places and Doctrines were to be judged But those heads were to be gathered out of Scripture And so all is resolved towards belief in Scripture but I think no man can see how they should say such a rule which was not Scripture was confirmed by miracles So for them And for Doctor Field if you will go through the twentieth chapter of the fourth Book you shall finde nothing in him contrary to this Doctrine For he saith plainly that though the Canonical Books are received by way of Tradition yet the Scriptures have not their authority from the approbation of the Church but they win credit of themselves and yeild satisfaction to all men of their Divine Truth whence we judge that the Church which receiveth them is led by the Spirit of God Observe not because the Church is led by the Spirit of God therefore doth he say she receiveth them but because she receiveth them therefore we judge she is led by the Spirit of God And as for his Rule of Faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles what is he like to mean but the Apostles Creed which he saith there was delivered in the Church as a Rule of her Faith But even this binds not by authority of the Church or upon Vertue of Tradition but by proportion to Scripture where it is found in particulars of matter though not in form of a Creed We confesse also that we should search out the true Church as the same Doctour saith We confesse that the Catholick Church is the Houshold of Faith the Spouse of Christ the Church of the Living God and that we should embrace her Communion and rest in her judgement Yes but how Not ultimately not absolutely not in what so ever she saith because shee saith it but in what so ever shee saith from the Lord. For although she doth goe by an infallible Rule yet are we not sure she goeth by it infallibly Therefore though wee rest in her judgements as to Peace yet can wee not rest in her judgements as to Truth because our understandings are not free to assent to what man will as being bound to assent to that onely which is grounded in the Word of God in matters of Faith And now might I Vie with you in number of Pontificians against you See Durand in his Prologue upon the Sentences where he hath more to our purpose then is necessary to be Transcribed Read him your self Gerson also in his Sermon concerning Errours against Faith and Manners about the Precept Thou shalt not kill saith thus More freely more purely more truely more speedily is Truth found out and Errour reproved if the Divine Law alone be constituted as Judge according to the consideration of Aristotle He which makes the Law the Judge makes God but he that addes Man addes a Beast Panormitanus also upon the 5. of the Decret concerning almes in chap. qualiter quando The saying of any Saint established with the Authorities of the New or Old Testament is preferred before a Papal Constitution even in decision of Causes Also Ferus upon the 1 Epistle of Saint John 2. chapter in the 52.3 page of the Antuerpe Edition thus The Holy Ghost doth teach t is by the means of the Holy Scripture and Word Again The Holy Scripture is given to us as a certain sure Rule of Christian Doctrine And again in the same page For if having the Holy Scripture as a most certain Rule of Christian Doctrine set before our Eyes we notwithstanding teach things so unlike what would be done if the Scriptures were taken away And if you say now that there is added to those places Tradition in the Roman Edition after the Trent Council as is noted You will get nothing by that but shame to the Pontificians And now I think I am not much behind hand with you in Testimonies about the Question But then afterwards you presse harder upon me So you say but I do not yet feel the weight of any thing you say I beleeve the Creed and that the Church is Holy And I do not beleeve but know that from hence nothing is coming to your cause The Catholick Church makes not it self the ground of Faith but is grounded in it as before And how were the first Members of the Catholick Church made Christians but by the Word of God And from the Holynesse of it doth not follow infallibility by the Roman distinction which saith that the Pope may erre
following instances to be of the necessaries I deny the antecedent in both branches if not I deny your supposition Taking you in the former sence I say that there are not now many Controversies necessary to be determined unto salvation which may not undoubtedly be decided by Scripture and also I say there may not be yet many more The first branch I deny because though many things which are res questionis are not decided by Scripture yet many controversies in things necessary cannot be said not to be undoubtedly decided by Scripture because in things necessary there are not many Controversies And the second branch I denie because we cannot expect any new necessaries and a new Tradition is a certain contradiction Now to answer to your particulars for the proof of the antecedent Controversie may be moved you say concerning the lawfulness of working and not working of Saturdayes and Sundayes How will this Controversie be decided by the Scripture c. So you To which we return you this answer that there is enough in Scripture to ground the practice of the Church for the observing of the Lords day First by the proportion to the Equity of keeping one day in seven which wee have in the fourth Commandement There is in the Commandment morale naturae that there should be a time set a part for publicke worship and this by the Light of Nature the Heathens did see as Tully Non ut Consilii sic Sacrificii c. There is not a day appointed of Counsel as of sacrifice then there is a positive determination to the Jew of the seventh day to be the day in the week of their solemn service and to this is agreable by good analogle that Christians should keep one day in seven as well as the Jews Now the moments in Scripture for the Translation of the day are several the appellation of the Lords day most likely of the day we keep the meeting of the Disciples and breaking of bread on the first day of the week the order for the provision for the poor by Saint Paul to the Corinthians To these we add the Syriack Interpretation which in the first Epistle to the Corinthians the 11. Chapter and the 20. Verse expresseth it thus when therefore you meet you do not as it is just on the Lords Day eating and drinking which is to be understood of the Communion according to the scope of the place And therefore may we think that this point of practise was so competently set out in Scripture as that we cannot suspend the usage upon the Authoritie of the Church since we may conceive that the Church was bound by the former Considerations to celebrate the Day of Christs Resurrection which is the Hope of the new Creature The seventh Day to the Jew was Positive and Ceremonial and therefore upon that account under capacity of being altered and the Equity of one day in the week is now under practice upon the former intimations Secondly If the Jewish day ceaseth not in the Obligation to Christians then the time when Christians should keep is under the Divine Commandement and is none of those things wherein the Church hath power because as you will confesse it hath no authority to rescinde a Divine precept So then if by necessity of mean it is necessary to keep the Lords day it is lawfully done and upon duty if it be not necessary by necessity of mean then is this Example of yours impertinent And so this argument unanswerable as you esteem it is without much labour answered by those who make the Scripture in which God speaks by him the sole Infallible Judge not excluding subordinate Judges which are to regulate their decisions by the rule of the word unto which the Scripture is not silent and in other things no need to be sure of such a Judge as you would have And this second Answer to your first instance may be available for your satisfaction in your second instance from the 15. of the Acts. For if those precepts of the 〈◊〉 in that Council do binde all alwaies then is We matter determined by Scripture if they do not then are we at our Christian liberty from them without a formal discharge thereof from the Church And secondly that we are not held under obedience to those Lawes appears by the intention of their imposition for that time since they were imposed upon occasion of scandal to the weak Jew the reason whereof now ceaseth and therefore the Laws ubi ratio cessat lex cessat as the rule is Onely as the Ceremonial Laws binde yet quâ—ad genus as they speak that there should be a decent publick worship in the Church of God not quoad speciem that we should continue the use of the same Ceremonies so even these precepts which were in their nature Ceremonial do yet binde so far improportion of kinde that in things of indifferency we should have respect to our weak Brother Thirdly Neither can you say that either he that does abstain from those things forbidden or he that does not abstain is upon that account in danger of damnation And therefore as quoad hoc we distinguish of your term Necessary if you take this matter Necessary as absolutely so by the morality of it or perpetual by appointment then we deny it to be necessary so and why do not you keep them if onely necessary as to present practice then doth it not come up to our question for it is none of those things necessary to Salvation which are determinable by the Church and not by Scripture In your tenth Number you give us another case not umpired by Scripture whether the King is Head of the Church And this you say we thought once to be determined by Scripture affirmatively now not so you in effect this point is now no longer ascertained us by infallible judgement of Scripture so you in terms We answer First What is infallibly decided in Scripture will ever be so although we do not alwaies finde it but we cannot find any thing infallibly decided by the Church Secondly We do not say that every point is Infallibly decided in Scripture because it is not at all decided therefore if you mean us so you mistake us And now premising these considerations we answer that we do hold our principle still if you will understand as according to our mind Head of the Church as you hold the Pope to be Head of the Church so as that we are bound in Conscience as upon his Infallibility to be ruled by his dictates in matters of Religion we never held the King to be but to be Head of the Church so as to be the chief Governor thereof as being appointed by God to be the Keeper of both Tables so we hold him to be still This distinction makes an end as it may seem of your objection and yet secondly we do not pretend the King to be head of the Universal Church as you pretend
if one be sufficient why the other if both be necessarie then either is not sufficient So then if the Scripture be the most sufficient ground of Faith when it be known to be the Word of God and the sense of it then I have contradicted you and you have contradicted your self For I say as you say that it is most true that the Scripture is the most sufficient ground of Faith And two sufficients there are not in the same kind Yes you say but first the Scripture must be known by infallible authoritie to be the Word of God Well but we both beleeve that the Scripture is the Word of God and by infallible authoritie we do beleive the Scripture to be the Word of God because we do believe it by the authoritie of it self which you say is infallible And if you believe it by infallible authoritie of the Church as you think you must go to Scripture for this authoritie then is not the Church a sufficient ground because it needs the Scripture to prove the Church and confirm its authoritie And therefore my concluding was contradictorie since your supposition of two sufficient grounds is false Well and how shall we know evidentlie whether this is the sense of Scripture By the authoritie of the Church you say And why then do they not by their authoritie evidentlie deliver unto us the sense of Scripture in everie difficultie If it cannot it is insufficient if it will not it is uncharitable and besides you fall into the same danger again For where hath it this authoritie by the Scripture then the Scripture is the sufficient ground again and this not And when the Church in a Council doth decide a controversie best it doth so by principles of Scripture applying them to particular cases and the determinations of the Church have themselves to the Scripture but as conclusions and the Scripture hath it self to those conclusions as the principle And therefore properlie the principles are believed and the conclusions are credible not by themselves but by participation from the Principles So that as the prime Principles are the ground of all Science so are the Principles of Scripture the ground of all Faith And the first Principle in Theologie must be this that the Scripture is the Word of God and so the ground of Faith And if the Church be not subordinate it is opposite to Scripture as the first Principle and so stands by it self and must fall to the ground And if you say it is not necessarie to umpire all doubts then you say as we say and why then an infallible Judge And forasmuch as we doe believe the Scripture to be the Word of God why do you contend because we do not believe it as you believe it but if you intend your Treatise in charitie you might have spared your labour For we are in a surer condition then you can be upon your Principles You believe the Scripture by the authoritie of the Church and we believe it by that by which the Church hath its authoritie So that the Scripture is not onely the first ground in regard of Order but also of Causalitie because the Church hath no ground but by Scripture Therefore we like your intention better then your judgement Neither do we denie the moment of the authoritie of the Catholick Church towards Faith so that we have all the authoritie of Heaven and Earth for our belief And if there were a doubt and in us a possibilitie of errour by apprehension that we cannot be assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God by the Church yet our errour would not be so dangerous because we should erre in honour of Scripture as yours is or would be who erre in honour of the Church Also must I observe your ingenuitie again here that you do profess it as most true that the Scripture is the most sufficient ground of Faith when we know by infallible authoritie that it is the Word of God and that such and such is the sense thereof If there be degrees of Truth and sufficiencie then are we more secure if degrees of Truth and sufficiencie to us then are we yet more right And also this doth deduct from your universalitie of faith in your first paper by the proposal of the Church in all things For my second third and fourth and fifth answer the Paragraphs of your Discourse or Treatise have in them nothing whith hath any potential contrarietie to them which I have not fully as I think taken away In your Application you make to or against my sixth answer you seem to take another argument to perswade me that the Scripture and the Church may both be grounds of Faith It is by way of interrogation Can I not say you ground my Faith upon what Saint Peter saith because I can ground it upon that which Saint Paul saith We answer your question is out of question but your consequence from thence is unsolid and unjudicious because they were both inspired in their Doctrine but it is yet again in question whether the Church be infalliblie inspired and we can be infalliblie assured thereof the reason being not the same your reasoning sinks Yet you insist further Why is the Scripture the rule of Faith Because it delivereth to me Gods written VVord but the Church delivereth to me Gods VVord written and unwritten I may therefore rule my self by that So you I answer This argument hath no strength to weaken that which I laid down before that there are not two sufficicient grounds of Faith because the Church is but a Ministerial rule and subordinate to Scripture and so subordinately a rule as to that VVord of God which is written and therefore can it not ground or order my Faith by its own Vertue but onely by proportion to Scripture and so is not a rule equal to Scripture intensively And if you conceive your argument should have any force because the Church doth exceed the Scripture extensively in that it delivereth the VVord written and unwritten Surely you are much mistaken by your supposition that there is a VVord of God not written in points of Faith equally credible to that which is written It is to be proved not supposed Your reasoning rather hath force against your self The Church is not a rule infallible because it delivereth to us a VVord of God not written for herein it mainly erres The Scripture is not onely a necessarie rule but also sufficient most sufficient And therefore they bring in tradition by way of supplement you say it is a sufficient rule in that you say it is a sufficicient ground of Faith therefore must you expunge tradition This rule of Scripture you say is often so crookedly applied that we had need of better securitie of interpretation then our own judgement of discretion So you First this is accidental to the rule and therefore it doth not infringe its prerogative Secondly by this Argument if you drive it to
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
the 17. Numb Thirdly that this Judge could be no other then the true Church to the 21. Numb Fourthly that the true Church is infallible in her judging points of Faith to the 17. Numb Fifthly That this true Church which is our infallible Judge is the Roman Church to 29 and last Numb Lastly followed the Conclusion My answer therefore must have five more chapters to shew the Reply made against that Treatise to be unsatisfactory in every particular argument opposed against me in all these five points 3. There might have been added another chapter to examine what my adversary saith concerning the Conclusion of my Treatise But as he himself Page 112. observeth very well he might have spared his Reply against my Conclusion because it containeth no new thing appertaining to the main Controversie but it was made onely to shew that in the handling of the main Controversie I had answered all his paper which I did there run over in order And therefore in his answers to all I had said about the main Controversie he had given up his answers to all that which is onely run over again in the conclusion Neither know I any reason that I gave him to fansie as he saith he doth that I should either think a good cause wanting to him or him wanting to a good cause unlesse he had answered my Conclusion apart though something were in it not said before by me and some few things in which I charge him But Sir that which I stand upon is the main question and the proof or disproof of it Nor will I judge so hardly of you as to think you will conceive either my cause worse or me a worse defender of it because I tire not my self and my Reader with our personal debates when they concern not the main question in which both of us have been so large And so as you thought you might have ended when you came to that conclusion so I think I may well end when I have answered those hundred Pages and more which I met with before I come thither though there still remained something which concerned our private debates For if that which hath been said before doth not satisfie no great satisfaction will be added by going on a little further in the same strain in matters lesse to the matter The first CHAPTER The Answer to my Preface Confuted 1. YOur first words intimate that you fear least your silence should make me seem to my self or others to have got the Victory Sir your Reply is most welcome in this respect that it doth more help me then your silence could not to seem to have got but really to get that Victory which I desire not to my selfe but to truth For the examination of your Reply will serve for a Touch-stone to my Arguments I will follow you as you desire step after step and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. To shew the necessity of treating the matter I had undertaken I said that such a manner of reading the Scripture as is permitted by you to all sorts of people with so unlimited a Licence to interpret them according to their own private judgement of discretion as a thing most apt to cause a numberlesse number of Sects and Heresies A priori this is proved thus You permit any Artificer who can read to take the Bible into his hand and to take it for his sole and onely Iudge of all necessary Controversies And though all the force and efficacy of the words of Scripture consist in the true sence and sincere Interpretation of it yet when all comes to all you leave this Interpretation to be made by every Reader though never so unskilful with so great Latitude that though a General Council of the greatest Doctors which could be gathered together should have defined such and such a point for undoubted true Doctrine and to be held so according to Scripture yet you permit any Cobler to make a Review of this Decree and if he hearing all that can be said on the one side and on the other judgeth at last that the whole Councel hath erred in interpreting Scripture you leave him free to hold himself so strongly to his own interpretation as if it were the true sence of Gods Word neither will you hear of any Obligation which he hath interiorly to submit his judgement which is the seat of true faith or errour to any other Iudge upon earth For surely if he be left by your Principles so free in the choice of his interpretation of Scripture as not to be obliged to submit interiorly to a whole General Council he hath far greater freedom in not being obliged to submit to any other private Doctours Is not this to leave men in a mighty hazard of misunderstanding Gods Word and falling into Heresie Secondly the same is proved a posteriori in those places where the sacred Scriptures are thus prostituted not only to the bare reading but also to the interpretation of every profane and ignorant fellow I still mean when he shall have heard or seen what can be alledged on all sides there and onely there Sects have multiplied and do multiply beyond measure 3. Neither do any of your arguments prove this not to be the true cause of Heresies and bad life which followeth Heresie First it is so far from being contrary to that Text You erre not knowing the Scripture that it is most agreeable to it For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of Scripture is to permit such and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures as are most fit to erre in the interpretation of them especially being licensed to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority of the Church if these stand in their way And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding The knowledge of Scripture If the works of these famous Physitions Galen and Hipocrates were thrust into all Trades-mens hands and every one of them were licensed to interpret as they sincerely thought best would you call this The knowledge of Physick especially if every one might be permitted to hold his interpretation against a General Assembly of most learned Physitians Secondly you in vain object that of Saint Paul That the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation Far was it from the intention of Saint Paul to speak of the Scriptures interpreted by every giddy fansie for thus they may be the occasion of our damnation Saint Paul said they were able to make Timothie wise to salvation because he was a man who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of to wit by the Oral tradition of the Doctours of the Church A man knowing of whom he had learned these things and these traditions Let such men read Scriptures and let them with such interpretations understand them and they will make them wise to salvation and to continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church and never to
did rely only upon traditions For if they had relied upon any things else in their beliefe their example had bin nothing to his purpose to shew what we should have done when we had only Tradition to rely upon 14. As for arguing about Tradition I went no Further then to shew that the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility in proposing for Gods word that which she delivereth us for Gods Word as worthy of an infallible assent in this point And the examples I bring prove this Now if this point be once assented unto with an infallible assent it draweth by unevitable Consequence the like assent to all other points which by the same authority are testified to be likewise delivered as Gods Word Or else you must be forced to say that it is in our power to assent to this authority as divine in all things it delivers as Gods Word and yet to deny it in some things which it delivers as Gods word which is a plain contradiction Well then if upon this presupposed authority as infallible I believe the Church delivering such and such points by her doctors and teachers which be points never written then it is manifest I believe her in other points then those which were then written so I may with as good reason believe her now upon her own authority testifying other points then those which are written Whence you see all I say holdeth good even in Traditions of proper name which we say are besides that which is written I cannot conclude more opposite to you then with your own words here P. 73. Tradition in matters of faith unwritten is of equall authority to scripture The Traditions we stand upon be matters of faith truly once revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles though this revelation were not written by them Therefore this is of equall authority to Scripture even according to your own words 15 I going on to prove yet further that Christ intended to guide us not by the Scripture only but cheifly by his Church used this argument Neither the Apostles nor their Successors took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as all or the greater part of them could understand You answer they did take care that the new Testament should be written in Greek Then you being still to prove that Greek was understood by all or the greater part of the world your only proof of this is only out of Tully saying Graeca per totum Orbem leguntur Greek is read though the whole World and so is Virgil in latin But neither the one nor the other is to be understood in a sense making to our purpose for both these sayings are only true thus that the more learned sort of men every where read Greek and Virgil. And these words of Tully being delivered in on Encomiasticall Oration pro Archia may truely be said to be spoken by way of a Notable amplification And either this must be confessed or Scripture denied For it is evident out of Scripture That the Vulgar language of diverse Nations situated even between that place we call Constantinople and the Citty of Antioch in which a man would suppose the Greek language farre more common then in the more Western or any Northern or Southern places yet I say even between those two Cities of Antioch where the same Tully saith Archias was born and studied and Constantinople the Greek tongue was not the Vulgar language of Pontus Cappadocia Asia minor Phrygia Pamphilia all which Nations the Scripture Act. 2. testifieth to have had different languages Within that compasse is also Galatia which Saint Hierome testifieth to have had a language somewhat like those of Trevers If nations so neere Greece had not the Vulgar use of that language but that tongue had so small a compasse even in Asia and some few Eastern parts of Europe all other parts of Europe and whole Africa using Vulgarly other Tongues how short do you fall of proving that Greek was understood by the greater part of the World And if this cannot be proved then I said truly that though the Apostles writ the new Testament in Greek yet they did not take any care to have it communicated to all Nations in such Languages as they could all or the greater part understand For all or the greater part could not understand Greek call here to mind how lowd you use to cry out against us for using our Common prayer in Lattin though Lattin be so common among all well bred people And yet our Cōmon prayer is a thing only offered to God by the Priests who understand what they say for the people But the New Testament contains as you say the only necessary groūd of faith faith necessary to salvation But the falsity of this your saying is convinced by the Apostles taking no care neither read we of any care taken for many yeares after their times to communicate the whole Canon of Scripture to the severall converted Nations in their several tongues I pray name me the time when the Scripture can be first shewed to have bin thus communicated to the people of so severall languages You will sweat for some hundred yeares before you can find this either done or effectually desired to be done They know the tongue could sufficiently deliver Gods Word to the people and that Orall Tradition joyned to dayly profession practise would abundantly suffice for the infallible delivery of Gods Word 16. You move the question how the people should clearly know the true tradition from the false I answer first they could know this better then know true Scripture from false for they could not do that but by knowing first the true Tradition recommending the true Scriptures from the Tradition recommending false Again after Christ they could do this as well and better then their forefathers for many hundreds of years yea for two thousand yea for twice two thousand yeares together Reflect a little upon the efficacy of Tradition joyned with perpetual profession and answerable practice dayly occurring For example The Apostles by onely unwriting Tradition did clearly undeniably teach the baptizing of Children prayer for the faithfull departed This Tradition from hence came to be Professed as true doctrine by all the first Christians and conformably hereunto they in all places baptized their Children in all places they prayed for the faithfull departed Nothing more common then being born every one that is born dieth whence dayly was the practice of baptizing infants and yet more dayly the practice of praying for the dead because they baptize infants but once but they pray often for the same man who is dead Will we suppose these two traditions are called in question concerning the truth of them And let us suppose this to be done as it was done in the last age Learned men looking in Records of their own and all other Countries will find every where Christnings and every where prayers
might gaine more credit to their error by holinesse of life as Socinus and others You come then to refute my arguments First it is so far from being contrary from that text you err not knowing the Scriptures that it is most agreeable to it For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of the Scripture is to permit such and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures as are most fit to erre in the interpretation of them And is this a good refutation And therefore the meaning of our Saviour must be according to your use they erred because they have the knowledge of the Scriptures which they mis-interpreted Shift you how you will you cannot evade was the knowledge of the Scriptures the cause of their error no that is contrary to our Saviour who said you err not knowing the Scriptures was it necessary that those who did know the Scriptures should mis-interpret them no for then that will by a recideration come into the same inconvenience for then the knowledge will be a certain mean at least in a large sense of this mis-interpretation And so it would be our best way to know nothing of Scripture that so we may not err 3. Can we imagine that our Saviour Christ discoursed as you do that because by our fault the Scriptures are an occasion of mis-interpretation therefore the people should not commonly use them is this symbolicall to the sense of our Saviour's words you err not knowing the Scriptures 4. Our Saviour then by you rebukes their mis-interpretation then he would have them know the Scriptures better not have the people deprived of them 5. There is a double knowledge as to this purpose 1. An habituall Knowledge which is chiefly of the Principles in Scripture this they had in their mind Then there is an actuall Knowledge which consists in an application of those Principles to particular Conclusions of belief and practise They were wanting it seems in the later in that they did not so as they should consider that text in Moses which our Saviour makes use of for the Resurrection They might have inferred the Resurrection from that text and so not have erred Therefore had they more need to look over the Scriptures again and consider them better The saying of the Jew is good He that reads a book an hundred times is not like him that readeth it an hundred times and one The oftner we read it especially the Bible the more we see in it But you bring a corroboration of your answer specially being licensed to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority of the Church if they stand in their way Sir this will not do 1. We licence them not to crosse all Antiquity we need not give them such a direction and surely if they should you would have no cause to blame them We have liberty to use that of the Philosopher in his Rhet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you look to that who contradict God and Fathers and Doctors 2. They cannot intend surely the crossing of all Antiquity for certainly they do not know all Antiquity yea if you speak all Antiquity with a full universality there are few of your own learned men that know it And therefore if any of their interpretations doth crosse antiquity it doth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is but by accident And in things necessary they are not so like to do so 3. Who is there of all your men that have proved this proposition that the Consent of the Fathers supposed makes an argument of Divine Faith therefore though we love their company yet we desire to see our way But object to us nothing but that which is proper How shall your men know that what they hold doth not crosse all Antiquity The Authority of the Church gives them neither faith of it nor Knowledge Yea some of yours say omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic You go on And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding the knowledge of the Scripture c. unto secondly Ans You make your self sport with the Ambiguity of the word Knowledge You mean it by way of a Science as Physick we do not say that Trades-men make any knowledge of Divinity so as to give an account of the principles of Divinity in the body of it no but they may have a knowledge of Scripture sufficient for their use although they do not teach others As if there were plain principles of Physick in our language we might make use them for our selves as Tiberius said after thirty years of age he would laugh at those who did need a Physitian you are deceived then or would deceive in the fallacie of consequent though all Science be knowledge all knowledge is not Science for knowledge is more generall and therefore surely of it self doth not inferre the most perfect species You say secondly you in vaine object that of St. Paul that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation c. unto thirdly wherein you allow the truth of the text with your gloss namely not as they are interpreted by every giddy fansie but by Tim. who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of by orall tradition Ans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what will you get by this answer If you understand by orall tradition such doctrines of the Gospell which were first preached afterwards written we grant you the use of such orall traditions but this boots you not for you must have traditions in point of faith besides what is written and such we deny unto you that Timothy had And I prove my deniall by your own words For how could Timothy understand Scripture by what was beside Scripture you speake of his understanding the Scripture by tradition tradition of proper name is that which is beside Scripture in the matter of it and how can he by that which is different in matter understand the Scripture If you mean by orall Traditions some traditive interpretations as learned men call them of the more difficult passages of Scripture this indeed were more reasonable in the hypothesis as to Timothy but this is nothing to us unlesse you can tell us certainly how many and what they are If there were such and lost then your Church is lost 2. Againe we allow no giddy fansie to define the sense of Scripture but in things necessary and plain their own knowledge may be sufficient and their private judgement may be as safely exercised in the sence thereof as in the choice of your Religion But thirdly by your own words I will conclude against you a fortiori for if the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise who was a Teacher much more others since as Mr. Cressy and you afterwards affirm there is more requisite to a Minister to be believed than others If then they be able to make a Minister wise unto salvation then one of the People much more who according
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
from his impropriation of it Yet we will give answer to his own form And as to his major we grant it that whatsoever is necessary to salvation is so far necessary to be believed as it is injoined unto salvation And that proposition of his is clearer than his proof for his reason doth not infer it namely because all are obliged to please God and to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God Ebr. For let the reason be put into form of an argument and then let any one see whether it will be cogent thus all are obliged to please God and to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God therefore his major is true under pain of damnation all are bound to agree c. No one and the other are true but one is not proved to be true by the other that axiom in the scope of it speaks of a faith as to that place onely in this particular that there is a God And therefore doth not this text aptly prove a necessity of interiour assent to all points necessary to be believed for salvation It seems by the compendiousnesse of that text that very few principles are necessary to be believed unto salvation because according to my Adversary we may please God with the belief according to this text which intends but that one main Principle that there is a God and that he is a rewarder of them that dilligently seek him And so this will abate the plea of Mr. Cressy and of my Adversary who contend that there is a great number of things which are necessary to be believed under pain of damnation And if he would extend that text virtually to a necessity of particular perswasion that whatsoever we do is lawfull as if it should have the same sense with that of the Apostle whatsover is not of faith is sin First that is not the meaning of the text And then secondly so it would exceed his purpose which is for points of faith for so it would also have reference to things indifferent unto which the other text is properly applied Well let us see his minor proved He proveth it thus An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority and no other infallible authority sufficient to breed this agreement in their interiour assent to all points necessary can be assigned but the authority of the Church Well the major of this Syllogism we grant but first how proves he the minor And yet we might also except against the form of it for it should be thus for the minor but there is no infallible authority but the Church and yet so the form is not right neither for the medium is not duly placed But how proves he the minor For this is yet to us the question out of question he may prove what he will if he can make the question proof And therefore lest his minor should appear to be grosly false for he by and by acknowledgeth the Scriptures authority to be infallible and lest that minor as it should be formed should not fully infer the minor of his prosyllogism he shuffles in in the minor of his last more than should be And let me now make use of his principles Without faith it is impossible to please God In all definitions of the Church I cannot have faith Therefore in all definitions of the Church I cannot please God The first proposition is Scripture and a principle which he also useth My second proposition I prove by his proof of his thus An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority The Church is not yet proved to have infallible authority therefore cannot we have infallible assent in the definitions of the Church and by consequent not faith for faith is in the nature of it an infallible assent Then towards the confirmation of his last minor he comes over with the deniall of this property to Scripture The authority of Scripture though infallible doth not give us clear texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation as I shall shew in the next chap. This is begging of the question in the second chap. not in the third if it be there proved but here he affords me then that which is a positive minor to my last Syllogism against him and compleatly it is made by his own principles now infallible assent is not built but upon submission to an infallible authority The Authoritie of Scripture is infallible Therefore Both his own propositions Onely the form of the discourse follows his But notwithstanding its infallible authority he says It doth not give clear texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation So that now all the question seems to be reduced to the debate about the clearness of the texts He seems not to deny the texts in the subject but denies them in the adjunct of clearnesse Ans First if there be texts for all points necessary materially then is that main opinion of the Papists about traditions sunk for since they are said to come in upon way of supply of what is not set down at all in Scripture and yet is necessary to be believed then if all be set down in Scripture but some things not clearly then have we no need of any new matter of traditions but only of traditive Interpretations which what they are and where they are who can tell Secondly if he supposeth more points necessary to salvation than indeed are necessary as they are wont to do then indeed the Scripture doth not afford clear texts for all things necessary in their opinion yea none at all for some of their opinions but as to those things which are really necessary so we deny it The Scripture hath sufficient clearnesse for all things necessary upon due account Thirdly The Councils do give us no other sense of those texts which are not clear in themselves than they are capable of do they No he will say for then they should not declare the sense of Scripture but make it which their greatest Doctors when they are in their sober minds do deny then are we determined in the Controversies by those texts and not by the authority of the Councils The Councils do but rub the glasse that we may see more clearly the sense but it is the sense which decides the point They do not make the way of truth but shew it and therefore the Church is not the High way but the Scripture If they by their discussion and discourse add one degree of claritude to those texts must the causality formal of the assent be attributed to their authority They do but make clear the object the assent of faith is not to the degree of clearnesse but to the object cleared Fourthly what if some of the greatest Doctors do give all this power of explication of ambiguous Scripture to the Pope and
Thirdly it is a great question upon the supposition who succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome and Carranza cannot determine it Fourthly St. Peter was appointed rather for the Jews than for the Gentiles and therefore the Trent Council in their comminations do very well to put St. Paul with St. Peter for indeed St Paul was the Doctor of the Gentiles Yea fifthly for six hundred years together there was no Pastors at Rome in their sense not Pastor of the universall Church as appears by Gregory's protestation against John of Constantinople who would arrogate and usurp universall jurisdiction And therefore there was not alwyes in the Church in my Adversaries sense a lawfull succession of Pastors because there was not Pastors in his sense and so by his argument there should not have been a Catholick Church for that time Yea Sixthly and lastly how can we be ascertained by certitude of faith that there was ever a lawfull succession of Bishops in Rome because we are not certain in that kind of certainty to be sure nor indeed in any other that the Popes were true Bishops or true Priests or true Christians because their principles bring it into question by the uncertainty of the qualifications of those who were to make them Christians by Baptism or Priests by orders or Bishops by consecration And also secondly because some as it is known by History have got into the sea by Simonie which makes it disputable even amongst themselves whether it did not ex vi Criminis make them no Bishops And the thirtieth Canon of the Apostles which they acknowledge as binding too injoins that such as get their dignity by money should be put out Yea thirdly when there were Antipapes how could the Common people by assurance of faith know which was the right For though they say that he is to be accounted the right whom the Council doth accept yet is it a question whether they can infallibly judge in the case otherwise no certainty of faith And then there is not always a Council and how can the Council be called without a true Pope If they may then is not the Pope essentiall to the infallibility of the Church This is answer enough to what he says about his lawfull succession of true Pastors that which appends hereunto is collaterally answered here more particularly before He goes on It is necessary to the salvation of every man to believe and do some things and not to do some other things not plainly set down in Scripture Ans Not so necessary as it is not to beg the question so often This proposition doth indeed plainly contradict our proposition but doth not prove it to be false unlesse it by it self did evidently appear to be true Therefore it is enough for me to deny it being the Respondent But we see by the way that those who make the Church its infallibility their first principle are apt to make all it says to be as clear as the first principles of Sciences He that believes and does according to Scripture is surer of salvation than all the Church can make him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ignatius's phrase is He that goes by the rule is safe he that goes by Scripture in faith and obedience goes by the rule Therefore Now God hath proposed the Scripture as our rule by Bellarmin's confession in the beginning of his Controversies as before And if it be not a compleat rule then indeed is it not a rule for it comes short of a rule and this will not serve Bellarmin's use because then they whom he disputes against might have urged their revelations beside the rule though not against it as the Pontificians are pleased to distinguish And as for point of faith we have besides what testimonies out of the Fathers for this I have given before the plain authority of St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his 4 Cat. p. 85. Edit Gr. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning things Divine and the holy Mysteries of faith there ought not to be delivered any thing without the Divine Scriptures And therefore in another place he understands by traditions the sum of those things that were taken out of Scripture as in the 5. Cat. p. 117. And so Tertullian in his Praes cap. 13. His Regula fidei is a sum of main points of Doctrine taken out of Scripture And concerning this rule he sayes Adversus Regulam nihil scire omnia scire est And so Irenaeus also means tradition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in severall places Indeed Tertullian and Irenaeus and Cyprian and Basill and Austin are quoted by the Pontificians in the Trent Council for holding that the Christian faith is contained partly in the Scriptures and partly in traditions But for these Fathers if their consent did ground infallible assent are either mis-understood or else are contradictory to themselves and therefore we cannot rely upon them because one part of the contradiction must be false As for St. Austin I have formerly quoted him for holding that all things necessary to faith and manners are amongst those things which are plainly contained in Scripture And St. Basill I have produced too And as for Cyprian we will quote him for the other part namely of action though we might also name him for Scripture to be the rule in things of faith for he makes his proofs from Scripture In his second B. of Epistles third Epistle he hath these words Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Neque enim hominis Consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Wherein he opposeth the truth of God to whatsoever custom And the truth of God he understands to be of the word written for there he proves all about the Cup in the Sacrament to be mingled with Wine and Water out of Scripture which proves however he took Scripture to be our rule in Agents Yea also this point was agitated by Marinarus in the Trent Council where he delivered his opinion P. 151. z. that the Fathers did not make Tradition to be equall to Scripture and therefore was he reprehended in the Council by Cardinall Poole for not allowing that Articles of faith are divided into two kinds some published by writing others commanded to be communicated by voice And can any sober man imagin that God should by his spirit give order for the writing of the Mystery of the Gospell and yet should also give order by his Spirit that somewhat should not be written but kept in Mystery for orall tradition and yet should be as much necessary as that which is written credat Judaeus Every one is to believe some things distinctly Now which these things be or how many Scriptures expresse not Ans Let this be taken for an antecedent will it be concluced from hence that therefore all things necessary are not plainly set
he note this Because it is right Will he correct the Magnificate This is ad verbum to the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea he cannot find fault with our translation in this without condemnation of the Rhemish for so they to correct From hence he says You should conclude thus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God But all Doctrine given by inspiration from God containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation Therefore all Scripture containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation Ans I am easily brought to St. Basil's rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach without envy to learn without shame But I need not learn from my Adversary how to order my discourse in this particular The forenamed text which I used in my second rejoinder was produced patly against his assertion that If God had not left us the infallible direction of his Church he had not well provided for the salvation of men To this I opposed the text in the 15 and 16. v. that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation And by consequent God hath well provided for salvation of men in generall Then I urged the particulars in which it is able to make us wise unto salvation in the 16. ver And now because I did not conclude punctually against the terms he hath in this paper and yet nemo temetur divinare he tells me that I and ours have a notable talent in not concluding contradictorily As he said in Tacitus Vtinam tu tam fortiter feries To the businesse then we say first that my Adversary did or might know that in a discourse every Syllogism or proof or answer doth not formally and in terminis conclude against the main question It is sufficient if it concludes against the last instance for if that be rightly made the virtue thereof will rebound ultimately to the principal question And secondly as to his Syllogism which he thinks concludes absurdly upon our opinion we say it is unanswerable because it hath neither mode nor figure He had better have put it into an Enthymem or a full Syllogism thus Whatsoever is inspired by God contains plainly all things necessary to salvation All Scripture is inspired by God therefore all Scripture Now he had the wit not to put it thus because we should so easily have denied the major as it is to be taken in the note of universality whatsoever distributively yea also and because whatsoever so is inspired doth not contain any thing necessary to salvation for every thing in Scripture doth not contain any necessary point And therefore like a Sophister he wraps it up in an obscure form yea none that it might not be discovered Thirdly if All in the propositions be taken collectively or complexively so we own the matter of the propositions and the Conclusion hath nothing in it but sound Doctrine without his consequences of teaching submission and obedience to the Church and by her all things necessary to salvation And fourthly he should discreetly have taken all Scripture complexively for if it were to be understood distributively then if every part of Scripture were profitable to all those ends what would become of their additions of verbum non scriptum If every part could make the man of God perfect what use of the merchandize of traditions as of necessity to salvation And yet fifthly it is like he would have swallowed his own discourse for the Church thus All definitions of the Church are inspired by God All Doctrine of the Church inspired by God contains all things necessary to salvation therefore all definitions of the Church contain all things necessary to salvation This would have pleased him well since he says the Scripture teacheth all things necessary to salvation eo ipso by this one article because it teacheth us submission to the Church and by her all things necessary to salvation Therefore sixthly he mistakes me simply or worse if he thought that I meant to conclude contradictorily by every particular unto which the Scripture is profitable He commits herein a fallacie of division making that to be concluded severally which is to be concluded jointly And seventhly we will now join issue with our Adversary upon the text and first upon the 15. ver thus That which is able to make us wise unto salvation contains plainly all things necessary to salvation but the holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation Therefore the Scripture contains plainly all things necessary to salvation And if there be exceptions made as to the major that Timothy was not an ordinary man and therefore though they might have that effect upon Timothy yet not upon every one we say as before that it follows ex abundanti If there were enough to make him wise then a majori others because he as a Minister needed more direction as my adversary affirm'd with Mr. Cressy And I hope they will not say that they were able to make him wise unto salvation because he had learned them from his youth for then if they would learn them from their youth they might make them also wise unto salvation and therefore they should also learn them from their youth as the saying of the Jews was a boy of five yeares old is to be applyed to the Bible Again a fortiori if the old Testament was able to make him wise unto salvation then surely the old and the new together but the old was able to make him wise unto salvation the new not being yet for a great part written as the Rhemists note And when they can find as much reason for the addition of their word not-written to the new Testament as there was for the addition of the new Testament to the old then let them say that this text doth not exclude Traditions If they did say it did not exclude Traditive interpretations it would be more reasonable because the new is added to illustrate and declare the old but it excludes traditions of new matter because the new adds no new matter to the old And yet again as to the manner of delivery of things necessary in Scripture if the old Testament which was more obscure was yet able to make Timothy wise as to point of knowledge unto salvation then certainly in the new Testament is there sufficiencie of plainnesse because the new is the old revealed as St. Paul speaks 2. Ep. to the Cor. 3.18 But we all with open face beholding as in a glasse the glory of the Lord are changed into the same Image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord. And now we will put into the argument all the ends unto which the Scripture is profitable That which is profitable to all those ends spoken of in the 16. ver to Doctrine in things to be known to redargution of errors to correction of manners to instruction in Righteousnes that the man of God might be perfect furnished for every good work doth sufficiently provide all
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
those texts defended doth sufficiently confirm the Scriptures sufficiency in matter and manner to this end of salvation We do not say that all things necessary to decide all Controversies are plainly set down in it that is not our assertion nor the state of the question betwixt us Our position may be true and yet this false for all things necessary to salvation may be plainly set down in Scripture and yet not all things necessary to decide all Controversies Neither can they maintain this of their Church which they think more fit to decide Controversies than Scripture for then why did not the Trent Council clearly determine on which part many questions should be held But the plainnesse of things necessary is in Scripture sufficient against the necessity of any Controversie as the fulnesse is sufficient against the necessity of Tradition which is their word unwritten And therefore are not we bound by any necessity of our cause to find any Text wherein we are obliged to take the Scripture for our onely Judge of Controversies for the texts before maintained are good to prove us obliged to Scripture for salvation whereunto things necessary are plainely set down If he might have made the state of the question for his own turn my discourse should have been impertinent A ruffling Adversary would have said that he had shifted and shuffled in the change of the question as if we had held that the Scripture did contain all things necessary to decide all Controversies All prime Controversies necessary to salvation if there need be any it doth and that is sufficient for us against them But he thought he had devised a way how this opinion might be made good that the Scripture doth suffice for the deciding of all Controversies thus 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 truth O excellent provision for the honor of Scripture One in the Trent Council as I remember did not like references but would have all done uniformely by the same hand but we must from Scripture referr to the Church And as it is said of Cardinall Bellarmin that being asked a question too difficult said he could not tell how to answer it but he would shew the party one that could and then shewed him the picture of an excellent Divine so the Scripture cannot answer all Controversies but it hath reputation in this that it can shew and doth an infallible Judge of all imaginable Controversies the Church To this first methinks then if it were but for this use the Scripture should be more common to the Laitie because it sheweth so clearly this Judge Secondly let them shew unto us where the Scriptture doth plainly shew unto us this Judge that they may no longer beg the question And Thirdly let them tell us why the Church doth not determin all Controversies as we have said before not imaginable onely but reall Controversies as concerning the Popes power in compare with a Council and concerning his temporall power and concerning the right of Bishops concerning original sin concerning the conception of the Virgin were these determined with satisfaction to all the Members of the Council Fourthly doth the Scripture give the denomination of this Church which is the pillar and ground of all truth that should be the infallible Judge Fifthly if they think the Spirit of truth doth abide with the Church to decide all Controversies by way of an habituall gift then must this Church have more priviledge than the Apostles had for they had the Spirit by way of a transient gift and therefore some particular questions they did not decide by the gift of the Spirit but the Church must have a standing faculty to decide all imaginable Controversies Sixthly may not we as well say this is for the glory of the Church for necessaries to salvation that it sends us to the Scripture which is infallible and clear enough in things of necessary faith This honour the Fathers before the universal Bishop gave to the Scriptures the Romanists now would arrogate it to the Church If they must be brought to a Competition which in ingenuity should carry the honour the Scripture according to the Fathers or the Church according to the Romanists But he thinks according to his principles he is not engaged to finde a plaine Text where this is set down that the Church should decide with infallible authoritie all our Controversies because according to them all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down Answ Then first according to our principles we are not bound to believe it and we must account it no necessary to salvation because it is not plainly set down And how then shall we know it what by its own light or may we know the Church by Scripture and not the infallibility which is the priviledge Secondly How then could he say by Scripture that God hath provided a way so direct that fooles cannot err Thirdly if he confesse that there is not a clear text which sheweth this priviledge of and our duty to the Church then the disputation is at an end for he will not dispute with me from the testimony of the Fathers for causes best known to himself And if he sayes we must be judged by the Church it is the question Fourthly therefore are we in this agreed which is the main point of the question namely that the Scripture doth not plainly set it down that the Church is to decide with infallible authority all our Controversies For if it were plainly set down we also should be bound to believe it as being plainly set downe though it would not therefore be necessary to salvation simply because it is plainly delivered All necessaries are plainly set down according to our opinion but all that is plainly set down is not necessary to salvation ex natura principii And then fifthly if he doubts of this point as to be plainly set down in Scripture then his principles are less capable of certainty than ours for he hath no ground certain of his faith upon the account of the Church because if the Church did ground her infallibility upon her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture she could not by her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture prove that she is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet neither hath the Church or their Church for ought I have read in any of their Councils determined it selfe by Scripture or otherwise infallible to the decision of all imaginable Controversies Nay neither do Bellarmin or Stapleton if I be not mistaken assert the infallibility of the Church in this extent therefore my Adversary in this walks alone Yet he says the texts he will produce hereafter are an hundred times more clear that the Church is to decide all our Controversies than
that it is not argumentative to others And therefore as to the question about the sufficiency of Scripture Mr. Hooker says that this is to be supposed that the Scriptures are the word of God And notwithstanding he thinks this is not to be proved by it self yet in his first book 34. p. he speaks enough in that he says the Scriptures do sufficiently direct us to salvation And he quotes for it Sotus in the margent And if it sufficiently directs us to salvation then must it be sufficiently clear of it self that it is the word of God for otherwise the principal point unto salvation must be known otherwise And if they think to argue well that we must have all faith from the authority of the Church because we have the faith of the Scriptures from the Authority of the Church we may as well conclude that since we have sufficient direction to salvation from the Scripture we are also sufficiently directed to this main point of faith from the Scripture that the Scripture is the word of God Yea more the Scripture doth give better evidence of it self to be the word of God than the Church can give testimony of it self to be infallible because the Church as such in religion is a non ens without Scripture in the substance of it But to make an end of this exception against me in varying from others this is the common Protestant principle or else Stapleton was decieved who makes account that every one of us ad unum do hold the Scripture to be known per se et sua quadam luce propria In Analsiy principionem Therefore if the question be how we are privately assured ultimately that the Scripture is the word of God we say with Stapleton that we are assured hereof by the testimony of the Spirit if the question be how we prove it to others to be the word of God we can for extrinsecall proof make use with Mr. Chillingworth of universal tradition His exception then against our private assurance of the Scripture to be the word of God in his following words comes to nothing for we need not from what we have said say that the assent of faith is evident as to an object of sense but yet the assent may be more firm and certain The formall object of faith is inevident yet may we more fastly hold to what we believe than to what we see because what we see depends upon our fallible sense but what we believe hath an infallible ground namely the word of God that this is his word For this ultimately must settle our personall faith or else we have no faith of proper name which is infallibly grounded All believe that what God says is true but if to the question whether God says this God cannot bring his own testimony there can be no authentick ground of Religion in subjecto And those therefore who would not have died to bear witness to a thing of sense have died to bear testimony to the Christian Religion and also have died for it assuredly ex vi habitus by the power of the habit of faith not ex vi traditionis by the credibility of the Church And as to that which he takes â—â—â—tice of that I acknowledge a greater necessity of such a Church to declare by infallible authority which books be the true word of God which not than to declare any other point I answer that it is not very ingenuously taken here by him what I said for I spake by way of supposition that it would not follow if the Church were infallible as to propose or tax and consign Canonical books as Stapleton speaks yet that we had need of the Church infallibly to propose every other point of faith He it seems took positively what was spoken upon supposition Every thing which is given in discourse is not granted to him but this he refers to num 43. For the ending then of this Paragraph and sufficiently for the Controversie upon the whole matter it remains that the Scripture must be credible for it self or else the Church Not the Church that must be known by the Scriptures as before therefore those texts by which the Church is proved in the truth and infallibility must be worthy to be believed for themselves or not if so then why not other parts of Scripture and so we have our purpose if not then are we in a circle and must beg the question and never be satisfied Num. 22. Here another argument is drawn against me from the effect negatively which in the kind of it doth not conclude A non esse ad non posse non valet And we may as well argue that some have this way attained faith therefore this is the way however the possibility proceeds from the effect to 〈◊〉 but it doth not proceed against a possibility from the deniall of it to some Because Pighius and Hermannus have not found assurance this way therefore this is not the way for finall assurance is inconsequent Secondly the cause of non-assurance thus doth not arise from the defect in Scripture which Stapleton says and some others is true and holy and authentick but God doth not give by his Spirit faith to all All men have not faith as the Apostle as commonly we expound it and though they are said to believe in the sense of the Church because they professe the Christian Religion yet by an internall act of faith many not Thirdly neither are we bound to maintain this proposition of theirs Facienti quod in se est datur gratia ex congruo and therefore if upon the use of means they have not this Divine faith infused it is no prejudice to our cause for not onely gifts are gratiae gratis datae but also the gratiae gratum facientes are also freely given and therefore is their distinction by the way faultie And therefore if there be many millions which is yet more than he could know who can truly and sincerely protest before God and take it upon their salvation that they are wholly unable by the reading these books to come to an infallible assurance that this is Gods word This inferrs nothing of moment against us because although we have not ordinarily the effect without the means yet because we use the meanes therefore necessarily we shall have the effect doth not follow if the graces of God be free Yea fourthly those millions he means are of their Church we may suppose and they we may think are instructed to find no resolution but in their own way by the proposall of the Church So that as St. Paul says Rom. 10.3 of the Jews that they going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God so also may we say of these that they going about to establish the authority of the Church in this point have not submitted themselves to the authority of God Yea fifthly and lastly to be even
or in an higher kind nothing is more credible for this testimony of the Spirit which is not yet disproved makes a thing not only prudently credible but necessarily and in the way of Divine faith And that which is prudently credible doth not include this but this eminently includes that which is prudentiall credibility Yet he goes on Yet here I intreat you to mark how they resolv'd their faith then c. namely in the space of the 200 years and more wherein they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church Ans This I have marked and not precariously But what shall I see in it that will give a sober man any satisfaction For first what if they did believe the soul to be immortall because God said it by the Church and the Church because it said that it had Commission from God is authorized with infallibility and did also believe this because the Church said so and why so because they would do so what of all this therefore we are not infallibly assured that the Scripture is the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit If they did believe indeed in way of a Divine faith then the Spirit of God did assure them by tradition For otherwise they forsake the antient Theological account of faith and they must either say that faith is not an habit infused or that it may be an habit infused without the Spirit of God but if they believed improperly or in the way of humane faith as we doe believe there are seven hills at Rome without universall tradition or a miracle then this is not to the purpose for the discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench we can say as much without contradiction to our cause Secondly they cannot surely expect that we should gratifie them so much as to say there is as much reason to believe tradition now as then because now they themselves will say that we have the benefit of what assurance the general Councils can make And also 3. we must here note out of their own words for the use of our cause that for the space of 200 years and more they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church So then for the same space they had not the coroboration of general Councils and therefore these do not make the reason of belief simply as they would have it because the Church was so long without them 4. Though the universal comprehends particulars yet a particular doth not comprehend an universal therefore whatsoever assent is due to tradition universal is not due to tradition particular of Rome This is their trick to build all upon the common ground of the whole Church and then to inclose the universal Church within the walls of Rome This we must enter our plea against upon all occasions 5. We see they are come off unto some latitude in their conception of faith because the last resolution in this quest of faith they make to be thus and they would do so because they would do so and again because it had been more folly not to accept of this Church's Commission to teach them infallibly all truths So that now the acquiscence of the soul in the deep mistery of faith must be terminated and determined upon rhe variable point and principle of prudence and that which must eternaly setle our mind in the first and last ground of infallibility must be this we do so because we will do so or because it were folly not to believe So then since currente rota the discourse is come to this let us have our liberty to believe as we do believe because we see it to be folly for ought can be seen by them to accept the Church's Commission to teach infallibly all truths Sixthly if they say all truths then they seem to be fallen from their former Concession and also Stapleton's that some truths may be believed without necessity of the Church Seventhly as for the immortality of the soul which they insist in to have been believed because God said it by the Church we say easily that this might with lesse difficulty be received from the Church because it is surely probable and some will say demonstrable by reason and therefore is not only asserted by Plato who might have it from the Jewes by redundance in Aegypt whither he and Pythagoras and some others travelled for wisdom as Justin Martyr witnesseth but also in effect as I think by Aristotle And also here certainly they must be put to distinguish betwixt the Church of Rome and the whole Church or else his words are not true or else Pope John the 22. did not belong to the Church for he did not commend to others the Faith of the Immortality of the Soul And yet he goes on Which Commission to teach them infallibly all truth they knew by tradition to have been ever accepted as Divine by all good people This reason if I may say so is surely full of it self but not solid for it doth in effect run round again and the Faith of the Church is proved by the Church for they make all good people to be convertible with the Church and therefore they make the holy Catholick Church to be the visible But how then is the Church Regula regulata the Rule ruled as hath been confessed before Secondly must we content our selves with this in the grand concernment of faith because the Church did accept this Commission as Divine which we know by Tradition but how shall we know this Tradition to be of the Church before we know the Church Are they advised of this then must we come to be assured of the Doctrine before we be assured of the Church And this Doctrine we must be assured of independently of the Church because we cannot know the Church but by the Doctrine and by the Doctrine of the Scripture too as S. Austin discourseth against the Donatists Thirdly if all good people know by tradition this Commission to be divine then my Adversary needed not to have pinched the last resolution of faith so as to have said they believed because they would do so or because it had been meer folly not to accept this commission for though universal Tradition cannot transcend its sphere unto a causality of proper faith divine yet hath it more reason in it than to make a generall beliefe arbitrary or to preserve the act of it from folly in the negative A Divine assurance will not be compared with a negative prudence but universal tradition doth surpass it We had best then compound the difference betwixt himself by a kind of division thus negative prudence was suitable to his former proof Aqua ascendit quantum descendit but Divine assurance which I suppose he urgeth by tradition is necessary for the question For the certainty of faith is such as cui non potest subesse falsum in which there can be no
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
intended by God for we do not say that it is fomally any Judge But we say that the Scripture doth so fully and so plainely set down things necessary so fully and so plainely that there is no necessity of tradition for more matter or of infallible Judge for more clear proposal of things necessary so that this which he saies is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench He saies yet is it not manifest that the Scripture may be a book as perfect as can be for the intent for which God made it This we may take for his proposition Then Bellarmin as before acknowledgeth it to be our rule against the Aanbaptists and therfore it is a perfect rule But elsewhere Bellarmin will have it to be but our commonitory then why doth he dispute it to be a rule against the Aanbaptists Whereas then my adversary would return the disgrace to Scripture upon me he does not or will not understand me for we do not say nor are bound to say that all necessary controversies are plainly decided by Scripture alone and that God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them and therefore we deny his consequences that since when it comes to the trial we are not able to shew any text of Scripture deciding many and most important controversies this in effect were to say God performed very insufficiently what he intended to doe by Scripture first we doe not say that all necessary controversies are plainly decided by Scripture for we say no controversies are necessary in point of necessary faith He puts in necessary controversies for necessary truths we say the Scripture plainly proposeth all necessary truths and he would bring us in saying that the Scripture plainly decides all necessary contoversies and therefore how can he say that we say God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them 2. Therefore we deny those points to be simply necessary to salvation which are not clearly proposed in Scripture 3. Whereas they say that the Scripture doth propose upon Gods intention the Church to be the infallible Judge in matters of faith and yet cannot show any text wherein this is clearly delivered they do dishonor God and Scripture and they dishonor God by accusing of Scripture as Nilus before In this number he holds the conclusion that expressions of Scripture are obscure in way of prophecy or type and that there is no certain mean of direction to the sense and then that therefore there must be an infallible Judge But nothing is answered to my answers about it And did he think that the Iewes did not understand the manner of expressions of the prophets in their own language or that David did not beare the type of Christ How else were they saved in the time before Christ And was the exact sense of every expression or type necessary such exceptions do not weigh And then again if there had been need in the time of the law of an infallible Judge for an infallible Illumination of dark expressions then if so dato non concesso what is this to the necessity of an infallible Judge in the times of the Gospel which is the old Testament revealed N 54. To passe by any slips in the former number by the scribe or otherwise we come to this paragr wherein he is not pleased to say any thing to what was replied about the several senses of Scripture But he would here corroborate his argument with Dr. Tailer's Judgment in his discourse of the liberty of prophecying And he saies he thinkes me not to be so much esteemed amongst our own Clergy or Laity as he I confesse it Neque de me quisquam vilius sentit quam ipse as one said But though this is very true that my authority is not comparable to his yet it was not rational for my adversary to diminish me because it makes a prejudice to his cause that so weak a man can oppose it and therefore I can spare him in this kind Let my adversary be the Champion of his cause And yet it may be the Reverend and learned Authour he names is not allwaies pleased with whatsoever he said in that book And yet also we can grant what is said by the Doctor who does not say that no Arguments can be drawn from Scripture but from those Scriptures which have many senses neither doth he say that those texts which have many senses do contain points necessary to salvation nor doth he say that if they did contain points necessary they are not elsewhere explained by more clear texts or may be explained for so he should disagree from St. Austin as before But to say no more let the Doctor have the honour with all my heart of the umpirage of the controversie in the example which my adversary hath put Take for an example those four words This is my body Indeed some there are which would have five words hoc est enim corpus meum And also it may be said that he may exceed in his number of interpretations of these words unless he takes in their own many differences hereabouts in the manner and time of the conversion they will hardly come up to two hundred divers interpretations And whereas he saies that we say that they are spoken in a figurative sense and not in their natural sense we can answer that we do deny the literal sense and do not deny that the figurative sense may be said in a good sort natural to the Sacramental use by reason of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is betwixt the signe and the thing Signified And much more might be said herein but let this point be compromised to the doctour in that excellent book which he hath lately written on purpose He saies all that I can say and more Here he would make good another Argument of his the Scripture useth the imperative mood as well when it counsels as when it commands He asks now what infallible means we have to know what is recommended to us as a counsel or as a precept to be kept under pain of damnation We answer first supposing the doctrine of counsels to be right and sound yet are they in no great danger by the uncertainty whether such a thing is proposed by way of counsels or precept since they hold it to be a thing of greater perfection to performe a counsel Therefore if they take a thing of counsel for a thing of command there is no danger surely in doing more then they are simply commanded to So then if this were all it would be no such difficulty as to practise because if they doe whatsoever is proposed pro imperio in the imperative mood there is no danger if it be commanded it was necessary if counselled there is greater perfection and an accidental reward above the essential God can distinguish which is which though they cannot and surely will if their opinion be true reward them accordingly And if there be any
effect Christans though not in denomination That which followes was cast in by me ex abundanti and not as such a decretory argument namely besides what may be supposed by the baptism of whole families And therefore he needed not to have said it is no evident consequence It was never intended for such Valeat quantum valere potest And yet if it be as probable or more that in all those families complexively there were some at least if but one or two Infants this consequence I think I may say is better then any they have given us to prove their infallibility At the end of this number he saies I insist not upon the authorities I alledged out of St. Austin St. Chrys because I deal with one who little regards authority confessed to be the Fathers Ans He might first have answered what I said to his citation of St. Austin but it seems by his neglect either that the Fathers are not for him or he not for the Fathers or indeed both and the latter because the former He is not for the Fathers because they are not for him And let them consider that of St. Austin in his 4. b. de Bap. contra Don. 28. ch Tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis baptismi Sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit Notwithstanding we may truly guesse what the Sacrament of Baptism does avail in infants out of the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received And Bellarmin must think Scripture good against Anabaptists but not for us against them who make better use of it as a tradition N. 62. And now to make an end of his long Chap. as he saies himself and I say so too but it might have been made shorter by him by halfe he saies he concludes as I would have him namely that these points were and ought to be determined by the Church upon necessity of Salvation He saies now This I prove by this argument This point and all the former are necessary to be believed with an infallible assent but we cannot believe any point with an infallible assent unless it be determined by infallible authority And the authority of the Scripture hath not determined these points then since no other infallible authority can be found on Earth if we deny the authority of the Church to be infallible her authority must needs be infallible Ans after a long chap. to make his word good he makes as long an argument which might have been put into two lines But part of his book was to be length But we answer in short first to the major proposition if he meanes when they are believed they are to be believed with an infallible assent we grant it or when they are clearely proposed are so to be believed we grant it but if he means it thus that this point and all the former are necessary to be believed with an infallible assent upon necessity of Salvation it is denied And he hath not nor can prove it 2. As to his assuming that the authority of the Scriptures hath not determined these points we say first that so farre as they are necessary they are determined in Scripture And 2. they are not so clearly determined in Scripture because they are not so necessary And yet we may say as St. Austin in such a case about intellectuall vision lib. 12 de gen ad literam cap. 25 Aliud est errare in his quae videt aliud errare quia non videt We do not erre in seing them in Scriptures but we do erre because we do not see them To end then Scotus proposeth this question As Mr. Hooker notes utrùm cognitio supernaturalis necessaria viatori sit sufficienter tradita in Sacra Scriptura whether supernaturall knowledg necessary to a Travailler be sufficiently delivered in the Holy Scripture and he concludes affirmatively And so may we 3. And for overplus if these points were necessary to be referred to the determination of the Church we could easily dato non concesso remove them from the Roman Court and try them by the universal Church of all places and times with which universal Church the Roman is not converted and by which it is not like to be converted CHAP. IV. The Church is not an infallible Iudge The first Number is a Preface depending upon hopes of the former discourse But to this we say nothing save only that they shall never be rewarded for such hope unless they can prove their word to be the Word of God FIrst those words Matthew 16.19 spoken to St. Peter upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it allow the Church a security from ever admitting any doctrine so pernicious that the gates of hell may prevaile against her Ans first though these words were spoken to St. Peter yet it doth not hence follow that they were spoken of St. Peter exclusively to the rest And then the Fathers as before understood it of his faith not of his person and of his faith objectively not subjectively And then 3. this respects not only the Church repraesentative but the Church formall against which principally the gates of hell do not prevaile and so the words runne handsomly for the Church that the words allow the Church security from ever admitting any doctrine so pernicious that the gates of hell may prevaile against her And therefore upon these considerations we flatly deny to him the following words that this promise made to the Church is that which mainely makes for my purpose and surely that which follows makes for us and may be a fourth answer to the former words whether the Church be built upon St. Peter and his successours or upon the faith of St. Peter is not the thing I chiefely aime at my aime is to find a Church built on a rock so strong that no errour shall ever overthrow it So then if we assume that the invisible Church is such we are agreed Only my adversary seems to have more mind to retreat then to retract But my adversary will have it to be understood of the representative Church because he saies he is now assured the Church shall never be a nest of errours idolatrous superstitious wickedly assuming the authority of an infallible Tribunal without sufficient warrant all or any of those things would bring her to the gates of hell they being all damnable impieties Ans Now we shall see that this makes not for him He was for the Roman Church was he not And yet will not here meddle how this concerns the Roman Church then how doth this make for him In the former treatise of his this Text was meant of St. Peter and his successours and now he will not meddle with what concernes St. Peter or his successours Will these things here be reconciled till Tishby comes 2. This makes for me not only that he is not willing as
teaching them what the universal Church holds to be Gods Law than by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be Gods law as you would have them do Ans This doth not contradict If they say it is more likely we can say it But what is this to Faith And upon this condition they are undone For which of their private Priests are able to say positively that this is the doctrine of the whole Church for all ages and places since the Apostles The Church otherwise considered hath no considerable Authority and so we mean the universal Church Secondly Although thus the Church is not the regula regulans but the regula regulata yet they cannot bring the consent of the universal Church for the points of difference Ad num 11. 12. 13. 14. Herein he gives me many words towards asserting Tradition to be a sufficient bottom of faith but in all these how little he takes away of my answer any one may say better then I. In the beginning of the eleventh he goes upon a false supposition that in the times before Moses the traditions were received by the Church upon the infallibility of the Church They were received by the Church not infallibly by the Church The Church had it self herein as a mean of proposall not as the last motive of faith Their faith was terminated by the spirit of God in the matter of tradition was not determined by the Church's Authoritative delivery the objectum quod of their faith was not the Churches proposal Then 2. supposing what we do not grant yet there is not now the same reason for the Church because they had more appearances tâ—en of God to and in the Church then now there is or hath been since the Apostles times And therefore the rule is good Distingue tempora 3. This will make a circle How were they assured infallibly of tradition by the Church How were they infallibly assured of the Church by tradition then the resolution of their faith was not into the credit of the Church as infallible Therefore doth my Antagonist in vain say to me shew the ground they had there to hold the Church infallible Nay the proofe hereof must come from the affirmer Asserentis est probare They are to make good here two things first that they did hold their Church infallible otherwise how could any of the people hold it to be infallible unles the Church did so determin of iâ— selfe and then that though they did hold it to be infallible yet that it was so and must be so otherwise they could not believe anything Afterwards he makes a perâ—triction of my distinction that the word in substance of it was before the Church which was begotten by it and then he tells me what I adde thereunto that when there is as much need and as great a certainty of tradition as formerly then he may urge the argument Here he shifts and shuffles He tell me that I must understand it of the unwritten word and to be only in orall â—radition Right I understand it so But what is this to 〈◊〉 question whether the manner of conveyance by tâ—e 〈◊〉 in way of orall tradition was infallible and then whether we are bound to take all or part of necessary doctrine from the Church this way And can they now conclude the Church infallible in the matter of tradition besâ—ide the word written by their tradition of the word unwritten And can they shew that the Iews were equally bound to any Tradition before the word written which was not agreable to the word afterwards written Otherwise how can they supply this to their purpose in urging Traditions differing from Scripture in matter equally to Scripture as the Trent Council defines as before Let them come to the point and satisfie demands In his discourse following I can grant him all untill he come to this they only had Gods word revealed by tradition This we must debate upon as being ambiguously delivered for only may relate to the subject they and so the sense is the Iewes only had Gods word revealed by Tradition but this is concerned here or only may have relation to Gods word as to the matter which was revealed and so the sense is that they had only that word which was revealed by tradition and this comes not to the point neither or only may relate to the manner of revealing by tradition and thus indeed it is proper for the debate but thus it is denied if we take it thus that the word of God was no otherwise assured to them than by tradition though they onely being Jews had onely that word of God which was revealed by tradition to believe yet had they not only tradition by which they did beleeve And therefore his conclusion must be naught and all he saies to that purpose even to the end of his Paragraph In the twelfth he deales about the need of tradition and he saies that the need or necessity of Tradition which you conceive to have been greater then than now doth not make the Traditions more Credible Ans True it is that simply the need of them doth not make them to be more credible if they be to be believed but there is the question whether there is now any to be believed necessarily in point of faith when there is not such need of them Scripture is as credible when we are heaven in regard of it self yet there we have no need of it but as since we have no need of it there we have reason to believe that there it will not take place so neither should Traditions when there is not that need of them My answer then did bear it self upon this that if there were that necessity of Tradition now as then he might urge the argument because God have would provided sufficiently for security of tradition now as then falsum prius And we may take his own similitude those that have read many credible books of France have they any need of orall Tradition to believe that there is such a Kingdome as France he saies no yet these last are as certain he saies Well then no more need have we of tradition for the doctrine of Christ which we sufficiently read in Scripture So then although he concludes Traditions hopefull and superflua non nocent yet can he not conclude them as necessary which should have been demonstrated But this he would doe in following words even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions we have ever had with them a perpetual succession of horrible Divisions opening still wider and wider Again odd reflexions upon Scripture but it is well he jopnes Traditions with it to take part of the consequence as he thinks and yet it may be he does not think so but that the cause of the Divisions is only Scripture and had we had no Scriptures we should have had fewer Divisions Doth he think so Then how is Scripture necessary as they generally confesse when it
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
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
This manner of speech might serve us against their infallibility but no speech serves infallibility but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And all those testimonies were given to the Iewes as ill as they were disposed Ans he seemes to mistake what I said formerly about indisposition to receive infallibility For I spoke of it in order to those who should receive the gift of it for the Church and he now seems to speake of it in order to the people But 2. Suppose there were as good a disposition the possibility hereof cannot conclude the same necessity of the same assistance and some of their men are named by some of ours for denying any such disposition towards such a measure of the spirit as formerly was given That the Scripture hath still the same certainty he saies categorically is apparently false speaking as you speake in order to assure us c. Ans All his reasons are invalid For as for the first that I confess some books of Scripture were formerly not acknowledged by all which now are received this is of no weight because it is sufficient to my discourse that they have still the same certainty from the time of their general reception And 2. They have in themselves allwaies the same credibility as well as his Traditions as he hath noted before And that many and a good many books of Scripture are quite lost is first in those termes at least a supposition Whether any be lost is yet work for Tishbi specially whether many much more whether a good many but it is obvious to a Romanist that denies the Scripture to be sufficient to find it imperfect in the matter In ingenuity he should have said nothing herein lest he should be interpreted for his own ends As the Socinian who denies Christs satisfaction to prove his opinion denies Christ's Divinity that so the satisfaction should not be sufficient so the Romanist lest the Scripture should be thought to be a sufficient rule saies a good part of it is lost Thus with their honesty they have lost their modesty Secondly let them again consider how much prejudice comes to their Church which they say is the depositary of Christian Doctrine upon the loss of a good many books of Scripture Thirdly yet dato non concesso suppose so yet that which doth remain is surely as sufficient as the old Scripture without all the new Fourthly my words do not engage me in this debate because they are of a capacity to be understood of that Scripture which doth remain Fifthly If any be lost me thinks as the Sibills books the rest should bear a better price And as to his other exceptions about the sense of Scripture about the Sacrament of the Eucharist or of Baptism whether to Infants or to be a Priest or a Bishop was to have power to sacrifice or absolve or not we say first that we have said enough already And we say that we need not say any more in these points till they make good these postulates First whether the exact knowledge of these points be necessary to Salvation Secondly whether if not they can yet prove an infallible Judge in all points of controversie appointed to us by God And as to the last they are first to prove a real sacrifice in the time of the Gospel otherwise there will be no object for a special act of a Priest as such And absolution simply we deny not their absolution to be necessary to salvation and that it can make attrition to be as good as contrition are tasks for them to prove who affirm them And as for that he saies that then they had the Apostles themselves or the known Disciples of the Apostles to tell them the meaning of those words He does not well consider what he saies if they gave the sense of those places which are obscure where are these interpretations why have we not a tradition of them if not they say nothing if so they must derogate from the Church's fidelity because it hath justly communicated and handed to us traditions of other matters then are written and not the sense of those Texts which are written 2. We are yet entirely able to hold the buckler in the defence of our position that there is no such need of an infallible exposition of those Texts which contain points necessary for faith or practice The water where the lambe might wade was clear enough then and had been yet clear enough had not the great Fisher troubled the waters for better fishing If the point of the diall be not fixed they may vary the shadow but the sun keeps it regular motion So if their gnomon be loose they may make the time to go for them but the sun of righteousnes Jesus Christ the same yesterday and to day and for ever as the author to the Hebrews speaks doth in an uniforme and regular course shine in the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ by the twelve Apostles is equally set for all times only the Roman makes the variation who would have the Scripture follow the Church and not the Church the Scripture We need not then yet their Oedipus who hath a foot so great that he must wear a slipper The following words in this section are somewhat cloudy and they do need a clue to shew us their right connexion His drift seems in them to be this to make me destroy my self by two positions first that the Church is secure from damnative errour though not from all simple errour the second this Heresie consisted in opposition to clear Scripture Ans One would have thought that a bad conclusion could not lawfully be begotten of these two positions since specially the second is such as was antiently held by those who do understand distinctly points of divinity And also I had thought once that he had granted the former though now pro re naâ—a he doth think otherwise I am sure he had more reason to stand to it then to abide the perill of the negative Well but what from hence Whence all those must needs be Hereticks who opposed clear Scripture Therefore all those who hold those prime points in which you and we differ with us against you were hereticks for they held these points which you say are against clear Scripture Ans The Church is considerable in the quantity of it so it is universal or particular it is considerable in the quality invisible or visible the Church invisible is distributively secure from all damnative errour the universal visible may be secure from all damnative errour This we say still But by what engine is this drawen into his conclusion which he saies should proceed partly from this position But 2. What if we grant all that those who have been with them against us in the points of difference were Hereticks it is but like for like for they familiarly give us no other name then Hereticks And I think we shall do very few Learned and sober men any harme
so they must at length rest in our Principles In this num beside somewhat in the beginning N. 48. answered before he would very fain repair the credit of the vulgar Latin which I had broken by an instance of Gen. 3.15 where it reads ipsa for ipsum referring to the Mother what belongs to the Son To this he saies It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be translated ipsum How know you the Church followed the false Hebrew copie Satis caute Some copies Not all May be Not are Most exactly be translated not some most exact copies Well Are not these copies the greater number And indeed are they not the most exact yea can they truly be translated otherwise and how know they that their Church followed the true Hebrew copie If it did not follow it infallibly or if they cannot know infallibly that it did follow it infallibly infallibly they are undone because they are upon terms of an infallible faith in an infallible Church Therefore though we can shake their foundation by our question they cannot settle their foundation by their question And yet we have another question He asks again How many most grave and most antient Fathers have also read ipsa Surely he does well to ask how many because he does not know how few Their names may they not be written in a nut shel and Bellarmin upon the place hath not many for it And some of them surely not most grave and also most ancient Fathers But as for St. Austin Bellarmin might as well or better have left him out of the Catalogue For though he renders it ipsa in his 11. de Gen. ad literam c. 36. and in another place yet he doth not expound it as they of the Virgin for he makes it to be mystically understood Significatur semine diaboli perversa semine autem mulieris fructus boni operis illa observat caput ejus ut eum in ipso initio malae suasionis excludat He might also have omitted St. Ambrose in his 2. b. de fuga saeculi cap. 7. for there he interprets it morally not referring it to the Virgin And both of them also differ from the Hebrew and their vulgar in the other words and follow the Septuagint For they translate it ipsa servabit caput tuum which doth not agree with the Hebrew with which the vulgar in this doth agree But Bellarmine also nameth St. Chrysostom in his 17. homily upon Gen. But then they must have some other edition of him if they will make use of his testimony for them For in three places of this homily he renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which he would think it may be to be for this use is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And not her alone the woman but I will make her seed to be a perpetual enemy to thy seed Yet upon this he doth immediately subjoyne the text as before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Bellarmin doth not yet bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed all they can do is much too little to cure this breach For S. Ierom is more considerable in this criticism than all the Fathers named And he saies melius in Hebraeo ipse conteret caput tuum Nay Bellarmin in the place quoted by him saith he had seen one copy he speaks of no more as he would surely if he had could and yet doth not tell us where So that to speak at least de communi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this reading ipsa is not agreeable to the Hebrew copies Nay Bellarmin doth sweat at it and therefore saies some copies of the vulgar Latin do interpret it ipse in the former Chap. And this makes a new difficulty on their part to reconcile the contrariety to the infallibility of the Church in both The Church was deceived in one and where then is their infallibility they speak of This is their modesty then against the gender in the Hebrew against the Samaritan Syriack Arabick translations which referre it to the seed against all Hebrew copies which Bellarmin had seen but one against some of their own copies of the vulgar Latin to make that Scripture for the Creature which belongs to the Son of God And also whether the Fathers most grave and most antient are for their interpretation we have examined and therefore he needed not be so plain as to say it was a loud lie of Chemnitius to say the contrary And will they say so to Lucas Brugensis who saies as much as Chemnitius in this point almost all the Fathers do read ipse as is noted Let me then say it would become them here to give glory to Christ immediately and to confess this fault And yet neither doth he competently answer to the question made to him why the Greek was not made infallibly the Church as well as the Latin That we have his declaration that the Latin vulgar is authentique and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners this he saies but this will not serve as may appear thus A translation of that which is not authentique cannot be authentique now let them determine whether it was made authentique or not If not made authentique being a translation as they say then how can the Latin be so declared an authentique translation for then the Church must have vim operativam too not onely declaratory and the effect shall exceed the material cause Or if it was declared authentique what of an infallible translation 2. Whereas he saies therefore it is not deficient in any point necessarie to faith and manners To wit the Latin translation we take notice of it that these words have a sense in them intended for their use namely not to be understood absolutely as if there were no error at all therein but restrictively specificatively no such errour but that it may be sufficient to direct us in faith and manners So then when he hath made use of his own words for his own turne we will make use of them for our purpose and we will not squeese them neither The first corollarie then from these words of his is this that he dares not stand to an absolute infallibilitie of the Church in every point whatsoever and therefore by Mr. Knott's argument he must abate of his former postulate of it's being the ground and cause of faith 2. Thus much we may as well or better say for our translation that it is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners 3. It semes then salvation is not in danger by some errours otherwise their translation should be deficent in points necessarie to faith and manners and therefore we need not upon danger of salvation have an infallible Judge to decide all points emergent 4. Things necessarie to faith and manners are sufficiently set down in scripture for otherwise the Latin translation must be deficient or else it must have more then the
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