them very deservedly And were these Texts more void of Truth than they are yet it were fit and reasonable to uphold their credit that Novices and young Beginners in a Science which are not able to work strongly upon Reason nor Reason upon them may have Authority to believe till they can learn to Conclude from Principles and so to know Is this also reasonable in other Sciences and shall it not be so in Theology to have a Text a Scripture a Rule which Novices may be taught first to believe that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things which out of this rich Principle and Treasure are Deduceable I yet see not how right Reason can deny these Grounds and if it cannot then a meer Natural man may be thus far convinced That the Text of God is a very Credible Text. Num. 19 Well these are the four ways by most of which men offer to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God as by a Divine and Infallible Warrant And it seems no one of these doth it alone The Tradition of the present Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine The Light which is in Scripture it self is not bright enough it cannot bear sufficient witness to it self The Testimony of the Holy Ghost that is most infallible but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question which is not how or by what means we believe but how the Scripture may be proposed as a Credible Object fit for Belief And for Reason no man expects that that should prove it it doth service enough if it enable us to disprove that which misguided men conceive against it If none of these then be an Absolute and sufficient means to prove it either we must find out another or see what can be more wrought out of these And to all this again A. C. says nothing For the Tradition of the Church then certain it is we must distinguish the Church before we can judge right of the Validity of the Tradition For if the speech be of the Prime Christian Church the Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven no question but the Voyce and Tradition of this Church is Divine not aliquo modo in a sort but simply and the Word of God from them is of like Validity written or delivered And against this Tradition of which kind this That the Books of Scripture are the Word of God is the most general and uniform the Church of England never excepted And when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholike Church moved me which Place you urged at the Conference though you are now content to slide by iâ— some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in General not excluding after-ages But sure to include Christ and his Apostles And the certainty is there abundance of certainty in it self but how far that is evident to us shall after appear Num. 21 But this will not serve your turn The Tradition of the present Church must be as Infallible as that of the Primitive But the contrary to this is proved before because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Divine To what end then serves any Tradition of the present Church To what Why to a very good end For first it serves by a full consent to work upon the minds of unbelievers to move them to read and to consider the Scripture which they hear by so many Wise Learned and Devouâ— men is of no meaner esteem than the Word of God And secondly It serves among Novices Weakings and Doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirm them till they may acquaint themselves with and understand the Scripture which the Church delivers as the Word of God And thus again some of your own understand the fore-cited Place of St. Augustine I would not believe the Gospel c. For he speaks it either of Novices or Doubters in the Faith or else of such as were in part Infidels You at the Conference though you omit it here would needs have it that S. Augustine spake even of the faithful which I cannot yet think For he speaks to the Manichees and they had a great part of the Infidel in them And the words immediately before these are If thou shouldest â—ind one Qui Evangelio nondum credit which did not yet believe the Gospel what wouldest thou do to make him believe Ego verò non Truly I would not c. So to these two ends it serves and there need be no Question between us But then every thing that is the first Inducer to believe is not by and by either the Principal Motive or the chief and last Object of Belief upon which a man may rest his Faith Unless we shall be of Jacobuâ— Almain's Opinion That we are per priâ—â— magis first and more bound to believe the Church than the Gospel Which your own Learned men as you may see by â— Mel. Canus reject as Extreme â—oul and so indeed it is The first knowledge then after the Quid Nominâ—â— is known by Grammar that helps to open a mans understanding and prepares him to be able to Demonstrate a Truth and make it evident is his Logick But when he hath made a Demonstration he resolves the knowledge of his Conclusion not into his Grammatical or Logical Principles but into the Immediate Principles out of which it is deduced So in thiâ— Particular a man is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading Means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God but when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with it self and with other Writings with the help of Ordinary Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the Voyce of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it self then Tradition alone could give And then he that Believes resolves his last and full Assent That Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal Arguments found in the Letter it self though found by the Help and Direction of Tradition without and Grace within And the resolution that is rightly grounded may not endure to pitch and rest it self upon the Helps but upon that Divine Light which the Scripture no Question hath in it self but is not kindled till these Helps come Thy Word is a Light so David A Light Therefore it is as much manifestatiâ—um sui as alâ—eriâ—s a manifestation to it self as to other things which it shews but still not till the Candle be Lighted not till there hath been a Preparing Instruction What Light it is Children call the Sun and Moon Candles Gods Candles They see the light as well as men but cannot distinguish between them
this the Protestants all agree And for the second the immediate Deductions they are not formally Fundamental for all men but for such as are able to make or understand them And for others 't is enough if they do not obstinately or Schismatically refuse them after they are once revealed Indeed you account many things Fundamental which were never so accounted in any sense by the Primitive Church such as are all the Decrees of General Councels which may be all true but can never be all Fundamental in the Faith For it is not in the power of the whole Church much less of a General Councel to make any thing Fundamental in the Faith that is not contained in the Letter or sense of that common Faith which was once given and but once for all to the Saints S. Jude 3. But if it be A. C's meaning to call for an Infallible Assurance of all such Points of Faith as are Decreed by General Councels Then I must be bold to tell him All those Decrees are not necessary to all mens salyation Neither do the Romanisis themselves agree in all such determined Points of Faith Be they determined by Councels or by Popes For Instance After those Books which we account Apocryphal were defined to be Canonical and an Anathema pronounced in the Case Sixtus Senensis makes scruple of some of them And after Pope Leo the tenth had defined the Pope to be above a General Councel yet many Roman Cathalikes defend the Contrary And so do all the Sorbâ—nists at this very day Therefore if these be Fundamental in the Faith the Romanists differ one from another in the Faith nay in the Fundamentals of the Faith And therefore cannot have Infallible Assurance of them Nor is there that Unity in the Faith amongst them which they so much and so often boast of For what Scripture is Canonical is a great point of Faith And I believe they will not now Confess That the Popes power over a General Councel is a small one And so let A. C. look to his own Infallible Assurance of Fundamentals in the Faith for ours God be thanked is well And since he is pleased to call for a particular Text of Scripture to prove all and every thing of this nature which is ridiculous in it self and unreasonable to demand as hath been shewed yet when he shall be pleased to bring forth but a particular known Tradition to prove all and every thing of this on their side it will then be perhaps time for him to call for and for us to give farther Answer about particular Texts of Scripture Num. 9 After all this Ouestioning A. C. infers That I had need seek out some other Infallible Rule and means by which I may know these things infallibly or else that I have no reason to be so confident as to adventure my soul that one may be saved living and dying in the Protestant faith How weak this Inference is will easily appear by that which I have already said to the premises And yet I have somewhat left to say to this Inference also And first I have lived and shall God willing die in the Faith of Christ as it was professed in the Ancient Primitive Church as it was professed in the present Church of England And for the Rule which governs me herein if I cannot be confident for my soul upon the Scripture and the Primitive Church expounding and declaring it I will be confident upon no other And secondly I have all the reason in the world to be confident upon this Rule for this can never deceive me Another that very other which A. C. proposes namely the Faith of the Roman Church may Therefore with A. C's leave I will venture my salvation upon the Rule aforesaid and not trouble my self to seek another of mans making to the forsaking and weakening of this which God hath given me For I know they Committed two Evils which forsook the Fountain of Living Waters to hew out to themselves Cisterns broken Cisterns that can hold no Water Jer. 2. For here 's the Evil of Desertion of that which was Right and the Evil of a bad Choice of that which is hew'd out with much pains and care and is after Useless and Unprofitable But then Thirdly I finde that a Romanist may make use of an Implicite Faith at his pleasure but a Protestant must know all these things Infallibly that 's A. C's word Know these things Why but is it not enough to believe them Now God forbid it should Else what shall become of Millions of poor Christians in the world which cannot know all these things much less know them Infallibly Well I would not have A. C. weaken the Belief of poor Christians in this fashion But for things that may be known as well as believed nor I nor any other shall need forsake the Scripture to seek another Rule to direct either our Conscience or our Confidence Num. 10 In the next place A. C. observes That the Jesuite was as confident for his part with this difference that he had sufficient reason of his Confidence but I had not for mine This is said with the Confidence of a Jesuite but as yet but said Therefore he goes on and tells us That the Jesuite had reason of his Confidence out of express Scriptures and Fathers and the Infallible Authority of the Church Now truly Express Scriptures with A. C's patience he hath not named one that is express nor can he And the few Scriptures which he hath alledged I have Answered and so have others As for Fathers he hath named very few and with what success I leave to the Readers judgment And for the Authority of the Catholike Church I hold it as Infallible as he and upon better Grounds but not so of a General Councel which he here means as appears after And for my part I must yet think and I doubt A. C. will not be able to disprove it that express Scripture and Fathers and the Authority of the Church will rather be found proofs to warrant my Confidence than his Yea but A. C. saith That I did not then taxe the Jesuite with any rashness It may be so Nor did he me So there we parted even Yea but he saith again that I acknowledge there is but one saving Faith and that the Lady might be saved in the Romane Faith which was all the Jesuite took upon his soul. Why but if this be all I will confess it again The first That there is but one faith I confess with S. Paul Ephes. 4. And the other that the Lady might be saved in the Romane Faith or Church I confess with that charity which S. Paul teacheth me Namely to leave all men especially the weaker both sex and sort which hold the Foundation to stand or fall to their own Master Rom. 14. And this is no mistaken charity As
them concluded and both of them wrote Books to maintain their Opinions and both of their Books were published by Authority And therefore I think 't is allowed in the Church of Rome to private men to express your Catholike Doctrine and in a matter subject to Question And therefore also if another man in the Church of England should be of a contrary Opinion to M. Rogers and declare it under the Title of the Catholike Doctrine of the Church of England this were no more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome And I for my part cannot but wonder A. C. should not know it For he says that for ought he knows private men are not allowed so to express their Catholike Doctrine And in the same Question both Catharinus and Bellarmine take on them to express your Catholike Faith the one differing from the other almost as much as Soto and Vega and perhaps in some respect more F. But if M. Rogers be only a private man in what Book may we find the Protestants publike Doctrine The Bishop answered That to the Book of Articles they were all sworn B. § 14 Num. 1 What Was I so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the Publike Doctrine of all the Protestants Or that all the Protestants were sworn to the Articles of England as this speech seems to imply Sure I was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the Subject of the Speech to be varied in the next lines Nor yet speak I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines and in the main Exceptions which they joyntly take against the Roman Church as appears by their several Confessions But if A. C. will say as he doth that because there was speech before of the Church of England the Jesuite understood me in a limited sense and meant only the Protestants of the English Church Be it so there 's no great harm done but this that the Jesuite offers to inclose me too much For I did not say that the Book of Articles only was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine She is not so narrow nor hath she purpose to exclude any thing which she acknowledges hers nor doth she wittingly permit any Crossing of her publike Declarations yet she is not such a shrew to her Children as to deny her Blessing or Denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation as your own School-men differ And if the Church of Rome since she grew to her greatness had not been so fierce in this Course and too particular in Determining too many things and making them matters of Necessary Belief which had gone for many hundreds of years before only for things of Pious Opinion Christendom I perswade my self had been in happier peace at this Day than I doubt we shall ever live to see it Num. 2 Well But A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew and such a Shrew For in her Book of Canons She excommunicates every man who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon nor perhaps the sense Not the Words for they are Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erronious c. And perhaps not the sense For it is one thing for a man to hold an Opinion privately within himself and another thing boldly and publikely to affirm it And again 't is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an Article which perhaps may be but in the manner of Expression and another thing positively to affirm that the Articles in any part of them are superstitious and erroneous But this is not the Main of the Business For though the Church of England Denounce Excommunication as is before expressed Yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome's severity whose Anathema's are not only for 39 Articles but for very many more above one hundred in matters of Doctrine and that in many Poynts as far remote from the Foundation though to the far greater Rack of mens Consciences they must be all made Fundamental if that Church have once Determined them whereas the Church of England never declared That every one of her Articles are Fundamental in the Faith For 't is one thing to say No one of them is superstitious or erroneous And quite another to say Every one of them is fundamental and that in every part of it to all mens Belief Besides the Church of England prescribes only to her own Children and by those Articles provides but for her own peaceable Consent in those Doctrines of Truth But the Church of Rome severely imposes her Doctrine upon the whole World under pain of Damnation F. And that the Scriptures only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. § 15 Num. 1 The Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture and her Negative do refute there where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture nor directly to be concluded out of it And here not the Church of England only but all Protestants agree most truly and most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation and contains in it all things necessary to it The Fathers are plain the School-men not strangers in it And have not we reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himself though an angry Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimony and in the matter or thing to be believed And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which we are to go for witness if there be Doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed as necessary in the Faith we never did nor never will refuse any Tradition that is Universal and Apostolike for the better Exposition of the Scripture nor any Definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what she teaches and thrusts nothing as Fundamental in the Faith upon the world but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam Credendorum the substance of that which is so to be believed whether immediately and expresly in words or more remotely where a clear and full Deduction draws it out Num. 2 Against the beginning of this Paragraph A. C. excepts And first he says 'T is true that the Church of England grounded her Positive Articles upon Scripture That is 't is true if themselves may be competent Judges in their own Cause But this by the leave of A. C. is true without making our selves Judges in our own Cause For that all the Positive Articles of the present Church of
England are grounded upon Scripture we are content to be judged by the joynt and constant Belief of the Fathers which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ when the Church was at the best and by the Councels held within those times and to submit to them in all those Points of Doctrine Therefore we desire not to be Judges in our own Cause And if any whom A. C. calls a Novellist can truly say and maintain this he will quickly prove himself no Novellist And for the Negative Articles they refute where the thing affirmed by you is either not affirmed in Scripture or not directly to be concluded out of it Upon this Negative ground A. C. infers again That the Baptism of Infants is not expresly at least not evidently affirmed in Scripture nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it In which case he professes he would gladly know what can be answered to defend this doctrine to be a Point of Faith necessary for the salvation of Infants And in Conclusion professes he cannot easily guess what answer can be made unless we will acknowledge Authority of Church-Tradition necessary in this Case Num. 3 And truly since A. C. is so desirous of an Answer I will give it freely And first in the General I am no way satisfied with A. C. his Addition not expresly at least not evidently what means he If he speak of the Letter of the Scripture then whatsoever is expresly is evidently in the Scripture and so his Addition is vain If he speak of the Meaning of the Scripture then his Addition is cunning For many things are Expresly in Scripture which yet in their Meaning are not evidently there And what e're he mean my words are That our Negative Articles refute that which is not affirmed in Scripture without any Addition of Expresly or Evidently And he should have taken my words as I used them I lke nor Change nor Addition nor am I bound to either of A. C's making And I am as little satisfied with his next Addition nor directly at least not demonstratively concluded out of it For are there not many things in Good Logick concluded directly which yet are not concluded Demonstratively Surely there are For to be directly or indirectly concluded flows from the Mood or Form of the Syllogism To be demonstratively concluded flows from the Matter or Nature of the Propositions If the Propositions be Prime and necessary Truths the Syllogism is demonstrative and scientifical because the Propositions are such If the Propositions be probable only though the Syllogism be made in the clearest Mood yet is the Conclusion no more The Inference or Consequence indeed is clear and necessary but the Consequent is but probable or topical as the Propositions were Now my words were only for a Direct Conclusion and no more though in this case I might give A. C. his Caution For Scripture here is the thing spoken of And Scripture being a Principle and every Text of Scripture confessedly a Principle among all Christians whereof no man desires any farther proof I would fain know why that which is plainly and apparently that is by direct Consequence proved out of Scripture is not Demonstratively or Scientifically proved If at least he think there can be any Demonstration in Divinity and if there can be none why did he add Demonstratively Num. 4 Next in particular I answer to the Instance which A. C. makes concerning the Baptism of Infants That it may be concluded directly and let A. C. judge whether not demonstratively out of Scripture both that Infants ought to be baptized and that Baptism is necessary to their Salvation And first that Baptism is necessary to the Salvation of Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without binding God to the use and means of that Sacrament to which he hath bound us is express in S. John 3. Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God So no Baptism no Entrance Nor can Infants creep in any other ordinary way And this is the received Opinion of all the Ancient Church of Christ. And secondly That Infants ought to be baptized is first plain by Evident and Direct Consequence out of Scripture For if there be no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church but by Baptism and this appear in Scripture as it doth then out of all Doubt the Consequence is most evident out of that Scripture That Infants are to be baptized that their Salvation may be certain For they which cannot help themselves must not be left only to Extraordinary Helps of which we have no assurance and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture while we in the mean time neglect the ordinary way and means commanded by Christ Secondly 't is very near an Expression in Scripture it self For when S. Peter had ended that great Sermon of his Act. 2. he applies two comforts unto them Verse 38. Amend your lives and be baptized and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost And then Verse 39. he infers For the promise is made to you and to your children The Promise What Promise What Why the Promise of Sanctification by the Holy Ghost By what means Why by Baptism For 't is expresly Be baptized and ye shall receive And as expresly This promise is made to you and to your Children And therefore A. C. may finde it if he will That the Baptism of Infants may be directly concluded out of Scripture For some of his own Party Ferus and Salmeron could both find it there And so if it will do him any pleasure he hath my Answer which he saith he would be glad to know Num. 5 'T is true Bellarmine presses a main place out of S. Augustine and he urges it hard S. Augustine's words are The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing Infants is by no means to be contemned or thought superfluous nor yet at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolâ—cal Tradition The place is truly cited but seems a great deal stronger than indeed it is For first 't is not denied That this is an Apostolical Tradition and therefore to be believed But secondly not therefore only Nor doth S. Augustine say so nor doth Bellarmine press it that way The truth is it would have been somewhat difficult to find the Collection out of Scripture only for the Baptism of Infants since they do not actually believe And therefore S. Augustine is at nec credenda nisi that this Custom of the Church had not been to be believed had it not been an Apostolical Tradition But the Tradition being Apostolical led on the Church easily to see the necessary Deduction out of Scripture And this is not the least use of Tradition to lead the Church into the true meaning of those things which are found in Scripture though
not obvious to every eye there And that this is S. Augustine's meaning is manifest by himself who best knew it For when he had said as he doth That to baptize children is Antiqua fidei Regula the Ancient Rule of Faith and the constant Tenet of the Church yet he doubts not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also For when Pelagius urged That Infants needed not to be baptized because they had no Original Sin S. Augustine relies not upon the Tenet of the Church only but argues from the Text thus What need have Infants of Christ if they be not sick For the sound need not the Physitian S. Mat. 9. And again is not this said by Pelagins ut non accedaent ad Jesum That Infants may not come to their Saviour Sed clamat Jesus but Jesus cries out Suffer Little ones to come unto me S. Mar. 10. And all this is fully acknowledged by Calvine Namely That all men acknowledge the Baptism of Infants to descend from Apostolical Tradition And yet that it doth not depend upon the bare and naked Authority of the Church Which he speaks not in regard of Tradition but in relation to such proof as is to be made by necessary Consequence out of Scripture over and above Tradition As for Tradition I have said enough for that and as much as A. C. where 't is truly Apostolical And yet if any thing will please him I will add this concerning this particular The Baptizing of Infants That the Church received this by Tradition from the Apostles By Tradition And what then May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture because it was delivered to the Church by way of Tradition I hope A. C. will never say so For certainly in Doctrinal things nothing so likely to be a Tradition Apostolical as that which hath a root and a Foundation in Scripture For Apostles cannot write or deliver contrary but subordinate and subservient things F. I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are balieved to be Scripture yet not proved out of any Place of Scripture The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be proved B. § 16 Num. 1 I did never love too curious a search into that which might put a man into a wheel and circle him so long between proving Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture till the Devil find a means to dispute him into Infidelity and make him believe neither I hope this is no part of your meaning Yet I doubt this Question How do you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harm than you will be ever able to help by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted upon by you and is in it self a matter of such Consequence I will sift it a little farther Num. 2 Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Divinity have used divers means to prove it All have not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolve Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into only Tradition For only and no other proof are equal To prove the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God there are several Offers at divers proofs For first some fly to the Testimony and witness of the Church and her Tradition which constantly believes and unanimously delivers it Secondly some to the Light and the Testimony which the Scripture gives to it self with other internal proofs which are observed in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoever Thirdly some to the Testimony of the Holy Ghost which clears up the light that is in Scripture and seals this Faith to the Souls of men that it is Gods Word Fourthly all that have not imbrutished themselves and sunk below their species and order of Nature give even Natural Reason leave to come in and make some proof and give some approbation upon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments And this must be admitted if it be but for Pagans and Insidels who either consider not or value not any one of the other three yet must some way or other be converted or left without excuse Rom. 1. and that is done by this very evidence Num. 3 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church which is your way That taken and considered alone it is so far from being the only that it cannot be a sufficient Proof to believe by Divine Faith that Scripture is the Word of God For that which is a full and sufficient proof is able of it self to settle the Soul of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to do this For it may be further asked Why we should believe the Churches Tradition And if it be answered We may believe Because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded of you How that may appear And if this be demanded either you must say you have it by special Revelation which is the private Spirit you object to other men or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture as all of you do And that very offer to prove it out of Scripture is a sufcient acknowledgment that the Scripture is a higher Proof than the Churches Tradition which in your Grounds is or may be Questionable till you come thither Besides this is an Inviolable ground of Reason That the Principles of any Conclusion must be of more credit than the Conclusion it self Therefore if the Articles of Faith The Trinity the Resurrection and the rest be the Conclusions and the Principles by which they are proved be only Ecclesiastical Tradition it must needs follow That the Tradition of the Church is more infallible than the Articles of the Faith if the Faith which we have of the Articles should be finally Resolved into the Veracity of the Churches Testimony But this your Learned and wary men deny And therefore I hope your self dare not affirm Num. 4 Again if the Voyce of the Church saying the Books of Scripture commonly received are the Word of God be the formal Object of Faith upon which alone absolutely I may resolve my self then every man not only may but ought to resolve his Faith into the Voyce or Tradition of the Church for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and formal Object of the Faith But nothing can be more evident than this That a man ought not to resolve his Faith of this Principle into the sole Testimony of the Church Therefore neither is that Testimony or Tradition alone the formal Object of Faith The Learned of your own part grant this Although in that Article of the Creed I believe the Catholike Church
peradventure all this be contained I believe those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily understood That I believe the Church teaching as an Infallible Witness And if they did not confess this it were no hard thing to prove Num. 5 But her'e 's the cunning of this Devise All the Authorities of Fathers Councels nay of Scripture too though this be contrary to their own Doctrine must be finally Resolved into the Authority of the present Roman Church And though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old yet they will not have us take their Doctrine from their own Writings or the Decrees of Councels because as they say we cannot know by reading them what their meaning was but from the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church reaching by Tradition Now by this two things are evident First That they ascribe as great Authority if not greater to a part of the Catholike Church as they do to the whole which we believe in our Creed and which is the Society of all Christians And this is full of Absurdity in Nature in Reason in All things that any Part should be of equal worth power credit or authority with the Whole Secondly that in their Doctrine concerning the Infallibility of their Church their proceeding is most unreasonable For if you ask them Why they believe their whole Doctrine to be the sole true Catholike Faith Their Answer is Because it is agreeable to the Word of God and the Doctrine and Tradition of the Ancient Church If you ask them How they know that to be so They will then produce Testimonies of Scripture Councels and Fathers But if you ask a third time By what means they are assured that these Testimonies do indeed make for them and their Cause They will not then have recourse to Text of Scripture or Exposition of Fathers or Phrase and propriety of Languagâ— in which either of them were first written or to the scope of the Author or the Causes of the thing uttered or the Conference with like Places or the Antecedents and Consequents of the same Places or the Exposition of the dark and doubtful Places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest With divers other Rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of Scripture which do frequently occur in S. Augustine No none of these or the like helps That with them were to admit a Private Spirit or to make way for it But their final Answer is They know it to be so because the present Roman Church witnesseth it according to Tradition So arguing â— primo ad ultimum from first to last the Present Church of Rome and her Followers believe her own Doctrine and Tradition to be true and Catholike because she professes it to be such And if this be not to prove idem per idem the same by the same I know not what is which though it be most absurd in all kind of Learning yet out of this I see not how 't is possible to winde themselves so long as the last resolution of their Faith must rest as they teach upon the Tradition of the present Church only Num. 6 It seems therefore to me very necessary that we be able to prove the Books of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authority that is absolutely Divine For if they be warranted unto us by any Authority less than Divine then all things contained in them which have no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Objects of Divine belief And that once granted will enforce us to yield That all the Articles of Christian Belief have no greater assurance than Humane or Moral Faith or Credulity can afford An Authority then simply Divine must make good the Scriptures Infallibility at least in the last Resolution of our Faith in that Point This Authority cannot be any Testimony or Voice of the Church alone For the Church consists of men subject to Error And no one of them since the Apostles times hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the Blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived And all the Parts being all liable to mistaking and fallible the Whole cannot possibly be Infallible in and of it self and priviledged from being deceived in some Things or other And even in those Fundamental Things in which the Whole Universal Church neither doth nor can Erre yet even there her Authority is not Divine because She delivers those supernatural Truths by Promise of Assistance yet tyed to Means And not by any special immediate Revelation which is necessarily required to the very least Degree of Divine Authority And therefore our Worthies do not only say but prove That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of Humane Law And some among you not unworthy for their Learning prove it at large That all the Churches Testimony or Voyce or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Divine Yea and A. C. himself after all his debate comes to that and no further That the Tradition of the Church is at least in some sort Divine and Infallible Now that which is Divine but in a sort or manner be it the Churches manner is aliquo modo non Divina in a sort not Divine But this Great Principle of Faith the Ground and Proof of whatsoever else is of Faith cannot stand firm upon a Proof that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Divine As it must if we have no other Anchor than the External Tradition of the Church to lodge it upon and hold it steddy in the midst of those waves which daily beat upon it Num. 7 Now here A. C. confesses expresly That to prove the Books of Scripture to be Divine we must be warranted by that which is Infallible He confesses farther that there can be no sufficient Infallible Proof of this but Gods Word written or unwritten And he gives his Reason for it Because if the Proof be meerly Humane and Fallible the Science or Faith which is built upon it can be no better So then this is agreed on by me yet leaving other men to travel by their own way so be they can come to make Scripture thereby Infallible That Scripture must be known to be Scripture by a sufficient Infallible Divine Proof And that such Proof can be nothing but the Word of God is agreed on also by me Yea and agreed on for me it shall be likewise that Gods Word may be written and unwritten For Cardinal Bellarmine tells us truly that it is not the writing or printing that make Scripture the Word of God but it is the Prime Unerring Essential Truth God himself uttering and revealing it to his Church that makes it Verbum Dei the Word of God And this Word of
till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And animalis homo the natural man sees some Light of Moral counsel and instruction in Scripture as well as Believers But he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-light and cannot distinguish between the Sun and twelve to the Pound till Tradition of the Church and Gods Grace put to it have cleared his understanding So Tradition of the present Church is the first Moral Motive to Belief But the Belief it self That the Scripture is the Word of God rests upon the Scripture when a man finds it to answer and exceed all that which the Church gave in Testimony as will after appear And as in the Voyce of the Primitive and Apostolical Church there was simply Divine Authority delivering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soul the Voyce of God i◠plainly heard in Scripture it self And then here 's double Authority and both Divine that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles delivering it And the internal worth and argument in the Scripture obvious to a Soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods Grace Num. 22 The Difficulties which are pretended against this are not many and they will easily vanish For first you pretend we go to Private Revelations for Light to know Scripture No we do not you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question and we go to the Tradition of the present Church and by it as well as you Here we differ we use the Tradition of the present Church as the first Motive not as the Last Resolution of our Faith We Resolve only into Prime Tradition Apostolical and Scripture it self Num. 23 Secondly you pretend we do not nor cannot know the prime Apostolical Tradition but by the Tradition of the present Church and that therefore if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods unwritten Word and Divine we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture by a Divine Authority Well I Suppose I could not know the prime Tradition to be Divine but by the present Church yet it doth not follow that therefore I cannot know Scripture to be the Word of God by a Divine Authority because Divine Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove it For suppose I had not nor could have full assurance of Apostolical Tradition Divine yet the moral perswasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough to move any reasonable man that it is fit he should read the Scripture and esteem very reverently and highly of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and Home-Arguments enough to put a Soul that hath but ordinary Grace out of Doubt That Scripture is the Word of God Infallible and Divine Num. 24 Thirdly you pretend that we make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be known Lumine suo by the Light and Testimony which it hath in and gives to it self Against this you give reason for your selves and proof from us Your Reason is If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it self then every man that can and doth but read it may know it presently to be the Divine Word of God which we see by daily experience men neither do nor can First it is not absolutely nor universally true There is sufficient Light therefore every man may see it Blinde men are men and cannot see it and sensual men in the Apostles judgment are such Nor may we deny and put out this Light as insufficient because blind eyes cannot and perverse eyes will not see it no more than we may deny meat to be sufficient for nourishment though men that are heart-sick cannot eat it Next we do not say That there is such a full light in Scripture as that every man upon the first sight must yeeld to it such Light as is found in Prime Principles Every whole is greater than a Part of the same and this The same thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect These carry a natural Light with them and evident for the Terms are no sooner understood then the Principles themselves are fully known to the convincing of mans understanding and so they are the beginning of knowledge which where it is perfect dwells in full Light but such a full Light we do neither say is nor require to be in Scripture and if any particular man do let him answer for himself The Question is only of such a Light in Scripture as is of force to breed faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect knowledge Now Faith of whatsoever it is this or other Principle is an Evidence as well as Knowledge and the Belief is firmer than any Knowledge can be because it rests upon Divine Authority which cannot deceive whereas Knowledge or at least he that thinks he knows is not ever certain in Deductions from Principles But the Evidence is not so clear For it is of things not seen in regard of the Object and in regard of the Subject that sees it is in aenigmate in a Glass or dark speaking Now God doth not require a full Demonstrative Knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no Light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certain Demonstration as may fit that And for that he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting where the Soul is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church unless you be of Bellarmine's Opinion That to believe there are any Divine Scriptures is not omninò necessary to Salvation Num. 25 The Authority which you pretend against this is out of Hooker Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Books we are bound to esteem Holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach Of this Brierly the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and yet seem well read tell us That Hooker gives a very sensible Demonstration It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is his Word for if any one Book of Scripture did give Testimony to all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require another to give credit unto it Nor could we ever come to any pause to rest our assurance this way so that unless beside Scripture there were something that might assure c. And this he acknowledgeth saith Brierly is the Authority of Gods Church Certainly Hooker gives a true and a sensible Demonstration but Brierly wants fidelity and integrity in citing him For in the first place Hooker's speech is Scripture it self cannot teach this nor can the Truth say that Scripture it self can It must needs
four proofs all internal to the Scripture First The Miracles Secondly That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine Thirdly That there hath been such performance of it Fourthly That by such a Doctrine of Humility the whole world almost hath been converted And whereas à d muniendam Fidem for the Defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lirinens places Authority of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparent that Tradition is first in order of time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of Nature that is the chief upon which Faith rests and resolves it self And your own School confesses this was the way ever The Woman of Samaria is a known Resemblance but allowed by your selves For quotidiè daily with them that are without Christ enters by the woman that is the Church and they believe by that fame which she gives c. But when they come to hear Christ himself they believe his word before the words of the Woman For when they have once found Christ they do more believe his words in Scripture than they do the Church which testifies of him because then propter illam for the Scripture they believe the Church And if the Church should speak contrary to the Scripture they would not believe it Thus the School taught then and thus the Gloss commented then And when men have tired themselves hither they must come The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures even to this knowledge of them That they are the Word of God is the Tradition of the Church but when they are in They hear Christ himself immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithful And his sheep do not only hear but know his voice And then here 's no vicious Circle indeed of proving the Scripture by the Church and then round about the Church by the Scripture Only distinguish the Times and the Conditions of men and all is safe For a Beginner in the Faith or a Weakling or a Doubter about it begins at Tradition and proves Scripture by the Church But a man strong and grown up in the Faith and understandingly conversant in the Word of God proves the Church by the Scripture And then upon the matter we have a double Divine Testimonie altogether Infallible to confirm unto us That Scripture is the Word of God The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselves who delivered immediately to the world the Word of Christ. The other the Scripture it self but after it hath received this Testimonie And into these we do and may safely Resolve our Faith As for the Tradition of after-Ages in and about which Miracles and Divine Power were not so evident we believë them by Gandavo's full Confession because they do not preach other things than those former the Apostles left in scriptis certissimis in most certain Scripture And it appears by men in the middle Ages that these writings were vitiated in nothing by the concordant consent in them of all succeeders to our own time Num. 33 And now by this time it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers which seem to speak differently in no few places both one from another and the same from themselves touching Scripture and Tradition And that as well in this Point to prove Scripture to be the Word of God as for concordant Exposition of Scripture in all things else When therefore the Fathers say We have the Scriptures by Tradition or the like either They mean the Tradition of the Apostles themselves delivering it and there when it is known to be such we may resolve our Faith Or if they speak of the Present Church then they mean that the Tradition of it is that by which we first receive the Scripture as by an according Means to the Prime Tradition But because it is not simply Divine we cannot resolve our Faith into it nor settle our Faith upon it till it resolve it self into the Prime Tradition of the Apostles or the Scripture or both and there we rest with it And you cannot shew an ordinary consent of Fathers Nay can you or any of your Quarter shew any one Father of the Church Greek or Latine that ever said We are to resolve our Faith that Scripture is the Word God into the Tradition of the present Church And again when the Fathers say we are to rely upon Scripture only they are never to be understood with Exclusion of Tradition in what causes soever it may be had Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient in and to it self for all things but because it is deep and may be drawn into different senses and so mistaken if any man will presume upon his own strength and go single without the Church Num. 34 To gather up whatsoever may seem scattered in this long Discourse to prove That Scripture is the Word of God I shall now in the Last place put all together that so the whole state of the Question may the better appear First then I shall desire the Reader to consider that every Rational Science requires some Principles quite without its own Limits which are not proved in that Science but presupposed Thus Rhetorick presupposes Grammar and Musick Arithmetick Therefore it is most reasonable that Theology should be allowed to have some Principles also which she proves not but presupposes And the chiefest of these is That the Scriptures are of Divine Authority Secondly that there is a great deal of difference in the Manner of confirming the Principles of Divinity and those of any other Art or Science whatsoever For the Principles of all other Sciences do finally resolve either into the Conclusions of some Higher Science or into those Principles which are per se nota known by their own light and are the Grounds and Principles of all Science And this is it which properly makes them Sciences because they proceed with such strength of Demonstration as forces Reason to yeeld unto them But the Principles of Divinity resolve not into the Grounds of Natural Reason For then there would be no room for Faith but all would be either Knowledge or Vision but into the Maximes of Divine Knowledge supernatural And of this we have just so much light and no more than God hath revealed unto us in the Scripture Thirdly That though the Evidence of these Supernatural Truths which Divinity teaches appears not so manifest as that of the Natural yet they are in themselves much more sure and infallible than they For they proceed immediately from God that Heavenly Wisdom which being the fountain of ours must needs infinitely precede ours both in Nature and excellence He that teacheth man knowledge shall not be know Psal. 94. And therefore though we reach not the Order of their Deductions nor can in this life come to the vision of them
boty by Divine and by Infallible Proof But our Certainty is by Faith and so voluntary not by Knowledge of such Principles as in the light of Nature can enforce Assent whether we will or no. I have said thus much upon this great Occasion because this Argument is so much pressed without due respect to Scripture And I have proceeded in a Synthetical way to build up the Truth for the benefit of the Church and the satisfaction of all men Christianly disposed Whereas had I desired only to rid my hands of these Captious Jesuites for certainly this Question was Captiously asked it had been sufficient to have restored the Question thus How do you know the Testimony of the Church by which you say you know Scripture to be the Word of God to be Divine and Infallible If they prove it by Scripture as all of them do and as A. C. doth how do they know that Scripture to be Scripture It is but a Circular Assurance of theirs by which they found the Churches Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Scripture And the Scriptures Infallibility upon the Testimony of the Church That is upon the Matter the Churches Infallibility upon the Churches Infallibility But I labour for edification not for destruction And now by what I have here said I will weigh my Answer and his Exception taken against it F. The Bishop said That the Books of Scripture are Principles to be Supposed and needed not to be Proved B. § 17 Why but did I say That this Principle The Books of Scripture are the Word of God is to be supposed as needing no Proof at all to a Natural man Or to a man newly entring upon the Faith yea or perhaps to a Doubter or Weakling in the Faith Can you think me so weak It seems you do But sure I know there is a great deal of difference between Ethnicks that deny and deride the Scripture and men that are Born in the Church The first have a farther way about to this Principle The other in their very Christian Education suck it in and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it That the Books commonly called The Bible or Scripture are the Word of God And I dealt with you as with a Christian though in Errour while you call Catholike The Words before spoken by me were That the Scripture only not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of Faith The Question between us and you is Whether the Scripture do contain all necessary things of Faith Now in this Question as in all Nature and Art the Subject the Scripture is and must be supposed The Quaere between the Roman-Catholicks and the Church of England being only of the Praedicate the thing uttered of it Namely Whether it contain all Fundamentals of Faith all Necessaries for Salvation within it Now since the Question proposed in very form of Art proves not but supposes the Subject I think I gave a satisfying Answer That to you and me and in this Question Scripture was a Supposed Principle and needed no Proof And I must tell you that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect Continent it is against all Art yea and Equity too in Reasoning to call for a proof of That here which must go unavoydably supposed in this Question And if any man will be so familiar with Impiety to Question it it must be tried in a preceding Question and Dispute by it self Yet here not you only but Bellarmine and others run quite out of the way to snatch at Advantage F. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Reply against M. John White Wherein I plainly shewed that this Answer was not good and that no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point ◠§ 18 Num. 1 Indeed here you read out of a Book which you called your own a large Discourse upon this Argument But surely I so untied the knot of the Argument that I set you to your Book again For your self confess that against this you read what you had formerly written Well! what ere you read there certain it is you do a great deal of wrong to M. Hooker and my self that because we call it a Supposed or Presumed Principle among Christians you should fall by and by into such a Metaphysical Discourse to prove That that which is a Praecognitum fore-known in Science must be of such light that it must be known of and by it self alone and that the Scripture cannot be so known to be the Word of God Num. 2 I will not now enter again into that Discourse having said enough already how far the Beam which is very glorious especially in some parts of Scripture gives light to prove it self You see neither Hooker nor I nor the Church of England for ought I know leave the Scripture alone to manifest it self by the light which it hath in it self No but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way like a preparing Morning-Light to Sun-shine then indeed we settle for our Direction yet not upon the first opening of the morning-light but upon the Sun it self Nor will I make needless enquiry how far and in what manner a Praecognitum or Supposed Principle in any Science may be proved in a Higher to which that is subordinate or accepted for a Prime Nor how it may in Divinity where Prae as well as Post-cognita things fore as well as after-known are matters and under the manner of Faith and not of Science strictly Nor whether a Praecognitum a presupposed Principle in Faith which rests upon Divine Authority must needs have as much and equal Light to Natural Reason as Prime Principles have in Nature while they rest upon Reason Nor whether it may justly be denied to have sufficient Light because not equal Your own School grants That in us which are the Subjects both of Faith and Knowledge and in regard of the Evidence given in unto us there is less Light less Evidence in the Principles of Faith than in the Principles of Knowledge upon which there can be no doubt But I think the School will never grant That the Principles of Faith even this in Question have not sufficient Evidence And you ought not to do as you did without any Distinction or any Limitation deny a Praecognitum or Prime Principle in the Faith because it answers not in all things to the Prime Principles in Science in their Light and Evidence a thing in it self directly against Reason Num. 3 Well though I do none of this yet first I must tell you that A. C. here steps in again and tells me That though a Praecognitum in Faith need not be so clearly known as a Praecognitum in Science yet there must be this proportion between them that whether it be in Science or in Faith the Praecognitum or thing supposed as known must be prius cognitum
that is the Scripture or if there be a jealousie or Doubt of the sense of the Scripture they must either both repair to the Exposition of the Primitive Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a General Councel which shall be lawfully called and fairly and freely held with indifferencie to all parties And that must judge the Difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as Private Mens Num. 2 And here after some lowd Cry against the Pride and Insolent madness of the Protestants A. C. adds That the Church of Rome is the Principal and Mother-Church And that therefore though it be against common equity that Subjects and Children should be Accusers Witnesses Judges and Executioners against their Prince and Mother in any case yet it is not absurd that in some cases the Prince or Mother may Accuse Witness Judge and if need be execute Justice against unjust and rebellious Subjects or evil Children How far forth Rome is a Prince over the whole Church or a Mother of it will come to be shewed at after In the mean time though I cannot grant her to be either yet let 's suppose her to be both that A. C's Argument may have all the strength it can have Nor shall it force me as plausible as it seems to weaken the just power of Princes over their Subjects or of Mothers over their Children to avoid the shock of this Argument For though A. C. may tell us 't is not absurd in some Cases yet I would fain have him name any one Moderate Prince that ever thought it just or took it upon him to be Accuser and Witness and Judge in any Cause of moment against his Subjects but that the Law had Liberty to Judge between them For the great Philosopher tells us That the Chief Magistrate is Custos juris the Guardian and keeper of the Law and if of the Law then both of that equity and equality which is due unto them that are under him And even Tiberius himself in the Cause of Silanus when Dolabella would have flatter'd him into more power than in wisdom he thought fit then to take to himself he put him off thus No the Laws grow less where such Power enlarges Nor is absolute Power to be used where there may be an orderly proceeding by Law And for Parents 't is true when Children are young they may chastise them without other Accuser or Witness than themselves and yet the children are to give them reverence And 't is presumed that natural affection will prevail so far with them that they will not punish them too much For all experience tells us almost to the loss of Education they punish them too little even when there is cause Yet when Children are grown up and come to some full use of their own Reason the Apostles Rule is Colos. 3. Parents provoke not your Children And if the Apostle prevail not with froward Parents there 's a Magistrate and a Law to relieve even a son against unnatural Parents as it was in the Case of T. Manlius against his over-Imperious Father And an express Law there was among the Jews Deut. 21. when Children were grown up and fell into great extremities that the Parents should then bring them to the Magistrate and not be too busie in such cases with their own Power So suppose Rome be a Prince yet her Subjects must be tryed by Gods Law the Scripture and suppose her a Mother yet there is or ought to be Remedy against her for her Children that are grown up if she forget all good Nature and turn Stepdame to them Num. 3 Well the Reason why the Jesuite asked the Question Quo Judice Who should be Judge He says was this Because there 's no equity in it that the Protestants should be Judges in their own Cause But now upon more Deliberation A. C. tells us as if he knew the Jesuites mind as well as himself as sure I think he doth That the Jesuite directed this Question chiefly against that speech of mine That there were Errors in Doctrine of Faith and that in the General Church as the Jesuite understood my meaning The Jesuite here took my meaning right For I confess I said there were Errors in Doctrine and dangerous ones too in the Church of Rome I said likewise that when the General Church could not or would not Reform such it was lawful for Particular Churches to Reform themselves But then I added That the General Church not universally taken but in these Western parts fell into those Errors being swayed in these later Ages by the predominant Power of the Church of Rome under whose Government it was for the most part forced And all men of understanding know how oft and how easily an Over-potent Member carries the whole with it in any Body Natural Politick or Ecclesiastical Num. 4 Yea but A. C. tells us That never any Competent Judge did so censure the Church And indeed that no Power on Earth or in Hell it self can so far prevail against the General Church as to make it Erre generally in any one Point of Divine Truth and much less to teach any thing by its full Authority to be a Matter of Faith which is contrary to Divine Truth expressed or involved in Scriptures rightly understood And that therefore no Reformation of Faith can be needful in the General Church but only in Particular Churches And for proof of this he cites S. Mat. 16. and 28. S. Luk. 22. S. John 14. and 16. In this troublesome and quarrelling Age I am most unwilling to meddle with the Erring of the Church in general The Church of England is content to pass that over And though She tells us That the Church of Rome hath Erred even in matters of Faith yet of the Erring of the Church in general She is modestly silent But since A. C. will needs have it That the whole Church did never generally Erre in any one Point of Faith he should do well to Distinguish before he be so peremptory For if he mean no more than that the whole Universal Church of Christ cannot universally Erre in any one Point of Faith simply necessary to all mens salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most Lear ned Protestants grant it But if he mean that the whole Church cannot Erre in any one Point of Divine Truth in general which though by sundry Consequences deduced from the Principles is yet made a Point of Faith and may prove dangerous to the Salvation of some which believe it and practise after it as his words seem to import especially if in these the Church shall presume to determine without her proper Guide the Scripture as Bellarm. says She may and yet not Erre Then perhaps it may be said and without any wrong to the Catholike Church that the Whole Militant Church hath
'le tell you how I know it Somewhat above four hundred years after Innocentius made his Comment upon the two great Lights the Sun and the Moon the Pope and the Emperor a Spanish Friar follows the same resemblance between the Monarchies of Rome and Spain in a Tract of his intitled The Agreement of the two Catholike Monarchies and Printed in Spanish in Madrid Anno 1612. In the Frontispiece or Title-page of this Book there are set out two Scutchions The one bearing the Cross-Keys of Rome The other the Arms of Castile and Leon both joyned together with this Motto In vinculo pacis in the bond of peace On the one side of this there is a Portraiture resembling Rome with the Sun shining over it and darting his beams on S. Peters Keys with this Inscription Luminare Majus the greater Light that it may govern the City that is Rome and the whole world And on the other side there 's another Image designing Spain with the Moon shining over that and spreading forth its Rays upon the Spanish Scutchion with this Impress Luminare minus the less Light that it may be subject to the City of Rome he means and so be Lord to govern the whole world besides And over all this in the top of the Title-page there is Printed in Capital Letters Fecit-Dens duo Luminaria magna God made two great Lights There follows after in this Author a Discovery at large of this Blazoning of these Arms but this is the Substance of it and abundantly enough to shew what is aimed at by whom and for whom And this Book was not stollen out without the will and consent of the State For it hath Printed before it all manner of Licence that a Book can well have For it hath the approbation of Father Pedro de Buyza of the Company of the Jesuites Of John de Arcediano Provincial of the Dominicans Of Diego Granero the Licencer appointed for the Supreme Councel of the Inquisition And some of these revised this Book by Order from the Lords of that Councel And last of all the Kings Priviledge is to it with high Commendation of the Work But the Spaniards had need look to it for all this lest the French deceive them For now lately Friar Campanella hath set out an Eclogue upon the Birth of the Dolphin and that Permissu Superiorum by Licence from his Superiors In which he says expresly That all Princes are now more afraid of France than ever for that there is provided for it Regnum Universale The Universal Kingdom or Monarchy Num. 13 But 't is time to Return For A. C. in this passage hath been very Careful to tell us of a Parliament and of Living Magistrates and Judges besides the Law-Books Thirdly therefore the Church of England God be thanked thrives happily under a Gracious Prince and well understands that a Parliament cannot be called at all times And that there are Visible Judges besides the Law-Books and One Supreme long may he be and be happy to settle all Temporal differences which certainly he might much better perform if his Kingdoms were well rid of A. C. and his fellows And she believes too That our Saviour Christ hath left in his Church besides his Law-book the Scripture Visible Magistrates and Judges that is Archbishops and Bishops under a gracious King to govern both for Truth and Peace according to the Scripture and her own Canons and Constitutions as also those of the Catholike Church which cross not the Scripture and the Just Laws of the Realm But she doth not believe there is any Necessity to have one Pope or Bishop over the Whole Christian world more than to have one Emperour over the whole world Which were it possible She cannot think fit Nor are any of these intermediate Judges or that One which you would have Supreme Infallible But since a Kingdom and a Parliament please A. C. so well to patern the Church by I 'le follow him in the way he goes and be bold to put him in minde that in some Kingdoms there are divers Businesses of greatest Consequence which cannot be finally and bindingly ordered but in and by Parliament And particularly the Statute-Laws which must bind all the Subjects cannot be made and ratified but there Therefore according to A. C.'s own Argument there will be some Businesses also found Is not the setling of the Divisions of Christendom one of them which can never be well setled but in a General Councel And particularly the making of Canons which must binde all Particular Christians and Churches cannot be concluded and established but there And again as the Supreme Magistrate in the State Civil may not abrogate the Laws made in Parliament though he may Dispense with the Sanction or penalty of the Law quoad hic nunc as the Lawyers speak So in the Ecclesiastical Body no Bishop no not the Pope where his Supremacie is admitted hath power to disanul or violate the true and Fundamental Decrees of a General Councel though he may perhaps dispense in some Cases with some Decrees By all which it appears though somewhat may be done by the Bishops and Governors of the Church to preserve the unity and certainty of Faith and to keep the Church from renting or for uniting it when it is rent yet that in the ordinary way which the Church hath hitherto kept some things there are and upon great emergent Occasions may be which can have no other help than a lawful free and well composed General Councel And when that cannot be had the Church must pray that it may and expect till it may or else reform its self per partes by National or Provincial Synods as hath been said before And in the mean time it little beseems A. C. or any Christian to check at the wisdom of Christ if he have not taken the way they think fitting to settle Church-Differences Or if for the Churches Sin or Tryal the way of Composing them be left more uncertain than they would have it that they which are approved may be known 1 Cor. 11. 19. But the Jesuite had told me before that a General Councel had adjudged these things already For so he says F. I told him that a General Couneeâ— to wit of Trent had already Judged not the Roman Church but the Protestants to â—â—lâ— Errours That saith the B. was not a Lawful Councel B. § 27 Num. 1 It is true that you replyed for the Councel of Trent And my Answer was not onely That the Councel was not Legal in the necessary Conditions to be observed in a General Councel but also That it was no General Councel which again you are content to omit Consider it well First is that Councel Legal the Abettors whereof maintain publikely That it is lawful for them to conclude any Controversie and shake it be deside and so in your Judgement Fundamental though it
Assembly it is probable 't is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Num. 2 Nor is this Hooker's alone nor is it newly thought on by us It is a Ground in Nature which Grace doth ever set right never undermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councel at Carthage would have presently yelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authority confirmed by Miracles and Antiquity S. Peter's Chair and Succession from it Motives to keep him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearly demonstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an evident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place every where but where these cannot be had there must be Submission to Authority Num. 3 And doth not Bellarmine himself grant this For speaking of Councels he delivers this Proposition That Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours and that in a Councel do proceed lawfully or not But then having bethought himself that Inferiours at all times and in all Causes are not to be cast off he addes this Exception Unless it manifestly appear that an intolerable Errour be committed So then if such an Errour be and be manifest Inferiours may do their duty and a Councel must yeeld unless you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a Private Spirit for neither doth he express who shall judge whether the Errour be intolerable Num. 4 This will not down with you but the Definition of a General Councel is and must be infallible Your Fellows tell us and you can affirm no more That the Voice of the Church determining in Councel is not Humane but Divine That is well Divine then sure Infallible yea but the Proposition sticks in the throat of them that would utter it It is not Divine simply but in a manner Divine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speak loudest in that manner in which it is not Divine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in an higher kinde than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in Testimony and Matter to be believed but the Church as the efficient Cause of Faith and in some sort the very formal Is not this Blasphemy Doth not this knock against all evidence of Truth and his own Grounds that says it Against all evidence of Truth For in all Ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians do do with the same breath grant it most undoubted and infallible But all men have not so judged of the Churches Definitions though they have in greatest Obedience submitted to them And against his own Grounds that says it For the Scripture is absolutely and every way Divine the Churches Definition is but sâ—o modo in a sort or manner Divine But that which is but in a sort can never be a Foundation in an Higher Degree than that which is absolute and every way such Therefore neither can the Definition of the Church be so Infallible as the Scripture much less in altiori genere in a higher kinde than the Scripture But because when all other things fail you flie to this That the Churches Definition in a General Councel is by Inspiration and so Divine and Infallible my haste shall not carry me from a little Consideration of that too Num. 1 Sixthly then If the Definition of a General Councel be infallible then the Infallibility of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Means that prove it or in the Conclusion not the Means or in the Means not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Means For there are divers Deliberations in General Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Means by which they prove it not infallible Not in the second The Conclusion and not the Means For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the Premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Councel uses be sometimes uncertain as is proved before the Conclusion cannot be Infallible Not in the third The Means and not the Conclusion For that cannot be true and necessary if the Means be so And this I am sure you will never grant because if you should you must deny the Infallibility which you seek to establish Num. 2 To this for I confess the Argument is old but can never be worn out nor shifted off your great Master Stapleton who is miserably hamper'd in it and indeed so are you all answers That the Infallibility of a Councel is in the second Course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be uncertain and fallible in the Means and Proof of it How comes this to pass It is a thing altogether unknown in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Num. 3 Well that is granted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes Knowledge But we shall have Reasons for it First because the Church is discursive and uses the Weights and Moments of Reason in the Means but is Prophetical and depends upon immediate Revelation from the Spirit of God in delivering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appear and all Controversie is at an end Well I will not discourse here To what end there is any use of Means if the Conclusion be Prophetical which yet is justly urged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Prophetical in the Conclusion I speak still of the present Church â— for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophecie and immediate Revelation was ever Prophetick in the Definition but then that was Infallible in the Means too That since it delivers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can bear it there must be some Supernatural Authority which must deliver this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flie to immediate Revelation now the Enthusiaesm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very Exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophecie in the Conclusion And I know no other thing that can warrant it If you think the Tradition of the Church can make the world beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that says This is an Universal Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a General Councel are Prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that says it of his own Authority that he thinks so
would fain through Master Roger's sides wound the Church of England as if she were unsetled in the Article of Christs Descent into Hell pag. 21. And he endeavours the same in this pag. 46. In the first he is very earnest to prove That the Schism was made by the Protestants pag. 23. And he is as earnest for it in this pag. 55. In the first he lays it for a Ground That Corruption of Manners is no just Cause of separation from Faith or Church pag. 24. And the same Ground he lays in this pag. 55. In the first he will have it That the Holy Ghost gives continual and Infallible Assistance to the Church pag. 24. And just so will he have it in this pag. 53. In the first he makes much adoe about the Erring of the Greek Church pag. 28. And as much makes he in this pag. 44. In the first he makes a great noyse about the place in St. Augustine Ferendus est disputator errans c. pag. 18. and 24. And so doth he here also pag. 45. In the first he would make his Proselytes believe That he and his Cause have mighty advantage by that Sentence of S. Bernard 'T is intolerable Pride And that of S. Augustine 'T is insolent madness to oppose the Doctrine or Practice of the Catholike Church pag. 25. And twice he is at the same Art in this pag. 56. and 73. In the first he tells us That Calvin confesses That in the Reformation there was a Departure from the whole world pag. 25. And though I conceive Calvine spake this but of the Roman world and of no Voluntary but a forced Departure and wrote this to Melancthon to work Unity among the Reformers not any way to blast the Reformation Yet we must hear of it again in this pag. 56. But over and above the rest one Place with his own gloss upon it pleases him extreamly 'T is out of S. Athanasius his Creed That whosoever doth not hold it entire that is saith he in all Points and Inviolate that is saith he in the true unchanged and uncorrupted sense proposed unto us by the Pastors of his Catholike Church without doubt he shall perish everlastingly This he hath almost verbatim in the first page 20. And in the Epistle of the Publisher of that Relation to the Reader under the Name of W. I. and then agian the very same in this if not with some more disadvantage to himself page 70. And perhaps had I leasure to search after them more Points than these Now the Reasons which moved me to set down these Particulars thus distinctly are two The One that whereas the Jesuite affirms that in a second Conference all the speech was about Particular matters and little or nothing about the main and great general Point of a Continual Infallible Visible Church in which that Lady required satisfaction and that therefore this third Conference was held It may hereby appear that the most material both Points and Proofs are upon the matter the very same in all the three Conferences though little be related of the second Conference by A. C. as appears in the Preface of the Publisher W. I. to the Reader So this tends to nothing but Ostentation and shew The Other is that Whereas these men boast so much of their Cause and their Ability to defend it It cannot but appear by this and their handling of other Points in Divinity that they labour indeed but no otherwise then like an Horse in a Mill round about in the same Circle no farther at night then at noon The same thing over and over again from Tu es Petrus to Pasce oves from thou art Peter to Do thou feed my Sheep And back again the same way F. The Lady asked Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith Upon my soul said the Bishop you may Upon my soul said I there is but one saving Faith and that is the Roman B. § 38 Num. 1 So it seems I was consident for the Faith professed in the Church of England else I would not have taken the salvation of another upon my soul. And sure I had reason of this my Confidence For to believe the Scripture and the Creeds to believe these in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church To receive the four great General Councels so much magnified by Antiquity To believe all Points of Doctrine generally received as Fundamental in the Church of Christ is a Faith in which to live and die cannot but give salvation And therefore I went upon a sure ground in the adventure of my soul upon that Faith Besides in all the Points of Doctrine that are controverted between us I would fain see any one Point maintained by the Church of England that can be proved to depart from the Foundation You have many dangerous Errours about the very Foundation in that which you call the Roman Faith But there I leave you to look to your own soul and theirs whom you seduce Yet this is true too That there is but one saving Faith But then every thing which you call De Fide of the Faith because some Councel or other hath defined it is not such a Breach from that One saving Faith as that he which expresly believes it not nay as that he which believes the Contrary is excluded from Salvation so his Disobedience therewhile offer no violence to the Peace of the Church nor the Charity which ought to be among Christians And Bellarmine is forced to grant this There are many things de Fide which are not absolutely necessary to salvation Therefore there is a Latitude in the Faith especially in reference to different mens salvation To set Bounds to this and strictly to define it for particular men Just thus far you must believe in every Particular or incur Damnation is no work for my Pen. These two things I am sure of One That your peremptory establishing of so many things that are remote Deductions from the Foundation to be believed as Matters of Faith necessary to Salvation hath with other Errours lost the Peace and Unity of the Church for which you will one day Answer And the other That you of Rome are gone farther from the Foundation of this One saving Faith than can ever be proved we of the Church of England have done Num. 2 But here A. C. bestirs himself finding that he is come upon the Point which is indeed most considerable And first he answers That it is not sufficient to beget a Confidence in this Case to say we believe the Scriptures and the Creeds in the same sense which the Ancient Primitive Church believed them c. Most true if we onely say and do not believe And let them which believe not while they say they do look to it on all sides for on all sides I doubt not but such there are But if we do say it
you are bound in Charity to believe us unless you can prove the Contrary For I know no other proof to men of any Point of Faith but Confession of it and Subscription to it And for these particulars we have made the one and done the other So 't is no bare saying but you have all the proof that can be had or that ever any Church required For how far that Belief or any other sinks into a mans heart is for none to judge but God Num. 3 Next A. C. Answers That if to say this be a sufficient Cause of Considence he marvels why I make such difficulty to be Confident of the Salvation of Romane Catholikes who believe all this in a far better manner than Protestants do Truly to say this is not a sufficient cause but to say and believe it is And to take off A. C's wonder why I make difficulty great difficulty of the salvation of Romane Catholikes who he says believe all this and in a far better manner than Protestants do I must be bold to tell him That Romanists are so far from believing this in a better manner than we do that under favour they believe not part of this at all And this is most manifest For the Romanists dare not believe but as the Romane Church believes And the Romane Church at this day doth not believe the Scripture and the Creeds in the sense in the which the Ancient Primitive Church received them For the Primitive Church never interpreted Christ's descent into Hell to be no lower than Limbus Patrum Nor did it acknowledge a Purgatory in a side-part of Hell Nor did it ever interpret away half the Sacrament from Christ's own Institution which to break Stapleton confesses expresly is a Damnable Errour Nor make the Intention of the Priest of the Essence of Baptism Nor believe Worship due to Images Nor dream of a Transubstantiation which the Learned of the Romane party dare not understand properly for a change of one substance into another for then they must grant that Christ's real and true Body is made of the Bread and the Bread changed into it which is properly Transubstantion Nor yet can they express it in a credible way as appears by Bellarmine's Struggle about it which yet in the end cannot be or be called Transubstantiation and is that which at this day is a scandal to both Jew and Gentile and the Church of God Num. 4 For all this A. C. goes on and tells us That they of Rome cannot be proved to depart from the Foundation so much as Protestants do So then We have at last a Confession here that they may be proved to depart from the Foundation though not so much or so far as the Protestants do I do not mean to Answer this and prove that the Romanists do depart as far or farther from the Foundation than the Protestants for then A. C. would take me at the same lift and say I granted a departure too Briefly therefore I have named here more Instances than one In some of which they have erred in the Foundation or very neer it But for the Church of England let A. C. instance if he can in any one Point in which She hath departed from the Foundation Well that A. C. will do For he says The Protestants erre against the Foundation by denying infallible Authority to a General Councel for that is in effect to deny Infallibility to the whole Catholike Church No there 's a great deal of difference between a General Councel and the whole Body of the Church Aud when a General Councel erres as the second of Ephesus did on t of that great Catholike Body another may be gathered as was then that of Chalcedon to do the Truth of Christ that right which belongs unto it Now if it were all one in effect to say a General Councel can erre and that the Whole Church can erre there were no Remedy left against a General Councel erring which is your Case now at Rome and which hath thrust the Church of Christ into more straits than any one thing besides But I know where you would be A General Councel is Infallible if it be confirmed by the Pope and the Pope he is Infallible else he could not make the Councel so And they which deny the Councels Infallibility deny the Pope's which confirms it And then indeed the Protestants depart a mighty way from this great Foundation of Faith the Popes Infallibility But God be thanked this is onely from the Foundation of the present Romane Faith as A. C. and the Jesuite call it not from any Foundation of the Christian Faith to which this Infallibility was ever a stranger Num. 5 From Answering A. C. falls to asking Questions I think he means to try whether he can win any thing upon me by the cunning way A multis Interrogationibus simul by asking many things at once to see if any one may make me slip into a Confession inconvenient And first he asks How Protestants admitting no Infallible Rule of Faith but Scripture onely can be infallibly sure that they believe the same entire Scripture and Creed and the Four first General Councels and in the same incorrupted sense in which the Primitive Church believed 'T is just as I said Here are many Questions in one and I might easily be caught would I answer in gross to them all together but I shall go more distinctly to work Well then I admit no ordinary Rule left in the Church of Divine and Infallible Verity and so of Faith but the Scripture And I believe the entire Scripture first by the Tradition of the Church Then by all other credible Motives as is before expressed And last of all by the light which shines in the Scripture it self kindled in Believers by the Spirit of God Then I believe the entire Scripture Infallibly and by a Divine Infallibility am sure of my Object Then am I as sure of my Believing which is the Act of my Faith conversant about this Object For no man believes but he must needs know in himself whether he believes or no and wherein and how far he doubts Then I am Infallibly assured of my Creed the Tradition of the Church inducing and the Scripture confirming it And I believe both Scripture and Creed in the same uncorrupted sense which the Primitive Church believed them and am sure that I do so Believe them because I cross not in my Belief any thing delivered by the Primitive Church And this again I am sure of because I take the Belief of the Primitive Church as it is expressed and delivered by the Councels and Ancient Fathers of those times As for the Four Councels if A. C. ask how I have them that is their true and entire Copies I answer I have them from the Church-Tradition onely And that 's Assurance enough for this And so I am fully as sure as A. C.
know it fell not from him on the sudden he had said as much before in the beginning of the same Chapter and here he confirma it again †Scotus Prolog in sent q. 2. Scriptura sufficientâ—r contiâ—â—t Doctrinam necessariam Viatori Thom. 2. 2â— q. 1. A. 10. ad 1. In Doctrinâ— Christi Apostolorum veritas fidei est sufficientèr explicata And he speaks there of the written Word ‖ Scripturam Fundamentum esse Columnam Fidei fatemur in suo genere i. e. in genere Testimoniorum in materâ—â— Credendorum Relect. Con. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. in fine A. C. p. 48. A. C. p. 4. * Habitus enim Fidei itâ— se habet in in orâ—ine ad Theologiam sicut se habet Habitus intellectus ad Scientias humanas M. Canus L. 2. de Loc. c. 8. A. C. p. 49. †S. Aug. expresly of the Baptism of Infants L. 1. de Peccato Mer. Remiss c. 30 Et L. 2. c. 27. Et L. 3. de Animà ejus Origine c. 13. Nay they of the Romane Party which urge the Baptism of Infants as a matter of Faith and yet not to be concluded out of Scripture when they are not in eager pursuit of this Controversie but look upon truth with a more indifferent eye consess as much even the Leaundist of them as we ask Advertendum autem Salvatorem dum dicit Nisi quis renatus c. necessitatem imponere omnibus ac proinde Parvulos debire renasci ex aquâ Spiritu Jansen Harm in Evang c. 20. So hereis Baptism Necessary for Infants and that Necessity imposed by our Saviour and not by the Church only Haeretici nulld alio quà m hoc Scripturae testimonio probare pollunt Infantes esse baptizandos Mald. in S. oh 3. 5. So Maldonat confesses that the Hereticks we know whom he means can prove the Baptism of Infants by no Testimony of Scripture but this which speech implies That by this Testimony of Scripture it is and can be proved and therefore not by Church-Tradition only And I would fain know why Bellarmine L. 1. de Baptism cap. 8. §. 5. should bring three Arguments out of Scripture to prove the Baptism of Infants Habemus in Scripturie tria Argumenta c. if Baptism cannot be proved at all out of Scripture but only by the Tradition of the Church And yet this is not Bellarmine's way alone but Suarez's in Tho. p. 3. q. 68. Disput. 25. Sect. 1. §. 2. Ex Scripturá possant varia Argumenta sumi ad confirmandum Paedobaptismum Et similitèr c. And Greg. de Valentià L. de Baptis Farâ—ulorum c. 2. §. 1. And the Pope himself Innocent 3. L. 3. Decretal Tit. 42. Cap. Majores And they all jump with S. Amâ—â— L. 10. Epist. 84. 〈◊〉 Demetriadem Virginem who expresly affirms it Paedobaptismum esse Constitutionem Salvatoris And proves it out of S. Joh. 3. 5. * Infantes reos esse Originalis peccati ideo baptizandos esse Antiquam Fidei Regulaâ— vocat S. Aug. Ser 8. de verb. Apost c. 8. Et nemo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas hoc Ecclesia semper babuit semper tenuit hoc à majorum sidâ— recepit c. S. Aug. Serm. 10. de verb Apost c. 2. S. Ambros. E. 10. Ep 84. circa medium Et S. Chrysost. Hom. de Adam Eva. Hoc praedicat Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa †Egi causam eorum qui pro se loqui non possunt c. S. Aug. Serm. 8. de verb. Apost c. 8. * Act 2. 38 39. * Nullum excipit non Judeum non Gentilem non Adultum non Puerum c. Ferus in Act. 2. 39. †Et ad Filios vestros quare debent consentire quum ad usum rationis perveniunt ad implenda promissa in Baptismo c. Salm. Tract 14. upon the place * Bellar. L. 4. de Verbo Dei c. 9. §. 5. †S. Aug. Gen. ad Lit. c. 23. Consuetudo Matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est nec omnind credenda nisi Apostolica esset Traditio * Cur Antiquam fidei Regulam frangere conaris S. Aug. Ser. 8. de ver Apost c. 8. Hoc Ecclesia semper tenuit Ib. Ser. 10. c. 2. †Quid necessarium babuit Infans Christum si non aegrotat S. Matth. 9. 12. Quid est quod dicis nist ut non accedant ad Jesum Sed tibi clamat Jesus Sine Parvulos venire ad me S. Aug. in the fore cited places * S. Marc. 10. 14. †Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolorum seculum pro certe referat Calv. 4. Iust. c. 16. §. 8. ‖ Miserrimum asylum soret si pro Defensione Paedobaptismi ad nudam Ecclisia authoritatem fugere cogeremur Cal. 4. Inst. c. 8. §. 16. * §. 15. Num. 1. A. C. p. 49. NUM 6. ◠†Orig. iâ— Rom. 6. 8. 〈◊〉 2. p. 543. Pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis Traditionem sâ—scepit etiam parvulis Baptis mum dare Et S. Aug. Ser. 10. de verb. Apost c. 2. Hoc Ecclesia à Majorum fide percepit And it is to be observed that neither of these Fathers nor I believe any other say that the Church received it à Traditione solâ or à Majorum fide solâ as if Tradition did exclude collection of it out of Scripture ‖ Yea and B. slarmine himself avers Onnes Traditiones c. contineri in Scripturis in universall Lib. 4. de verb. Dei non scripto c. 10. §. Sic etiam And S. Basil. Serm. de fide approves only those Agrapha quae non sunt aliena à piâ secundum Scripturam Sententiâ * Qui conantur fidem destruere sub specie Quaestionis difficible aut sortè indissolubilis c. Orig. Q. 35. in S. Matth. * To know that Scriptures are Divine and insallible in every part is a Foundation so necessary as if it be doubtfully question'd all the Faith built upon Scripture falls to the ground A. C. p. 47. Necesse est nosse ext are libros aliquos verè Divinos Bellatm L. 4. de verb. Dei non scripto c. 4. §. Quartò necesse Et etiam libros qui sunt in manibus esse illos ibid. §. Sextò oportet 1. 2. 3. 4. Rom. 1. 20. * Esse aliquas veras Traditiones demonstratur ex Scripturis Bellar. L. 4. de verbe Dei non scripto c. 5. and A. C. p. 50. proves Tradition out of 2 Thes. 2. * Arist. 1. Post. â— 2. T. 16. Per Pacium Quòcirca si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter prima scimus credimus illa quoque scimus credimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magis quia per illa scimus credimus etiam posteriora †Eorum errorem dissimulare non possum qui asserunt fidem Nostram 〈◊〉 tanquà m in ultimam credendi causam reducendam esse Ut Credamus Ecclesiam esse
question but to make them ready against they understood it And as School-Masters make their Scholars conne their Grammar-Rules by heart that they may be ready for their use when they better understand them NUM â—0 * L. 1. cont Epis. 〈◊〉 c. ◠〈…〉 non credâ—râ—m E 〈…〉 â—isi me catholiâ—â— Ecclesiâ— commâ—veret Authoritâ—◠†Occham Diaâ— p. 1 L. â— c. 4. Intelligitur solum dâ— Ecclesi◠〈◊〉 â—uit â—â—â—pore Apostolorum ‖ Bâ—el lect 22. in C. Missâ— A tempore Christi Apostolorum c. And so doth S. Aug. take â—ccles 〈…〉 a Fâ—â—d * â— 16. Nâ— 6. * Sâ—ve Inâ—ideles â—ive in Fide Novitii Can. Loc. L. 2. c. 8. Neganti aut omninò neÌ„sciâ—â—ti Scripturam Stapl. Relect. Cont. 4. q. 1. A. 3. †Quid si fateamur Fideles etiam Ecclesiae Authoritate commâ—ueri ut Scriptur as recipiant Non tamen inde sequitur â—oâ— hoc modo penitus persuaderi aut nullâ— aliâ— fortioréâ—ue ratione induci Quis antem Christianus est quem Ecclesia Christi commendans Scripturam Coristi non commâ—â—â—at Whitaker Dâ—sp de sacrâ Scripturâ Contrâ— 1. â— 3. â— 8. ubi citat locum â—anc S. Aug. ‖ Et 〈◊〉 Quibus â—â—â—emperaâ—â— dicentibus Credite Evangâ—â—io Therefore he speaks of himself when he did not believe * â—â—â—tum est quod teneâ—â—â— credere omnibus 〈…〉 in Sacro Canonâ— quia Ecclesia credit â—x ea ratione solum Ergo per prius magis tâ—â—â—â—uâ— Credere Ecclesiae quà m Evangâ—â—â—â— Aâ—tt 〈…〉 n. in 3 Dist. 24. Conclus 6. â—â—â— 6. And to make a shew of proof for this he â—alsifies S. August most notoriously and reads that known place not Niâ—◠〈◊〉 commoâ—â—râ—â— at all read it â—â—â— râ—mâ—elleret Pateâ— quiae dicit Augustinus Evangelio non Credereâ— nisi ad â—oâ— me compellâ—ret Ecclesiâ— Authoritas Ibid. And so also Gerson reads it in Declarat veritatum quâ— crâ—dendâ— sunt c. part 1. p. 414. §. 3. But in a most ancient Manuscript in Corp. Chr. Colledge Library in Cambridge the words are Nisi me commovâ—râ—t c. †Câ—â—â—n L. â— de Lâ—câ—â— c. 8. fol. 34. ◠§. 16. Num. 6. * Psal. 119 10â— Sâ—â—ctarum Scripturarum Lumen S. Aug. L. de verâ Relig. c. â— Quid 〈◊〉 Scripturum vanis umbris c. S. August â— dâ— Mâ—r. Eccl. Cathol â—35 * 1 Cor. 2. 14. †Orig. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. went this way yet was he a great deal nearer the prime Tradition than we are For being to prove that the Scriptures were inspired from God he saith Dâ—â—oc â—ssigâ—abimus â—x ipsis Diviâ—is Scripturis quâ— nos compâ—â—â—â—tâ—r moâ—â—riâ—t c. ‖ Princip 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—m hîc credimus propter Dâ—â—m non Apostolâ—s c. Hâ—nr à â—and Sum. A. 9. q. 3. Now if where the Apostoles themselves spake ultimate resolutio Fidei was in Deum not in ipsos per se much more shall it be in Deum than in prâ—sentem Ecclesiâ—â— and into the writings of the Apostles than into the words of their Successors made up into a Tradition * Calv. Instit. 1. c. 5. §. 2. Christiana Ecclesia Prophetarum scriptis Apostolorum praedicatione initio fundata â—uit â—â—icunque reperietur eâ— Doctrina c. * And where Hooker uses this very Argument as he doth L. 3. §. 8. his words are not If there be sufficient Light But if that Light be Evident †1 Cor. 2. 14. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 11. 1. †§. 16. Nâ— 13. ‖ Heb. 11. 1. * 1 Cor. 13. 12. And A. C. confesies p. 52. That this very thing in Question may be known infallible when 't is known but obscurely Et Scotus in 3. Dist. 23. q. 1 fol. 41. B. Hoc modo facile est videre quomocò Fides est cum aenigmate obscuritate Quis Habitus Fidei non credit Articulum esse verum ex Evidentiâ— Objecti sed propter boc quod assentit veratitati infundentis Habitum in hoc revelantis Credibilia †Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 14. Credere ullas esse divinas Scripturas non est omninò necessarium ad salutem I will not break my Discourse to â—iâ—â—e this speech of Bellarmine it is bad enough in the best sense that favour it self can give it For if he mean by omninò that it is not altogether or simply necessary to believe there is Divine Scripture and a written Word of God that 's false that being granted which is among all Christians That there is a Scripture And God would never have given a Supernatural unnecessary thing And if he means by omninò that it is not in any wise necessary then it is sensibly false For the greatest upholders of Tradition that ever were made the Scripture very ncessary in all the Ages of the Church So it was necessary because it was given and given because God thought it necessary Besides upon Roman Grounds this I think will follow That which the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe is omninò necessary to salvation But that there are Divine Scriptures the Tradition of the present Church delivers as necessary to believe Therefore to believe there are Divine Scriptures is omninò be the sense of the word what it can necessary to Salvation So Bellarmine is herein â—oul and unable to stand upon his own ground And he is the more partly because he avouches this Proposition for truth after the New Testament written And partly because he might have seen the state of this Proposition carefully examined by Gandavo and distinguished by times Sum. p. 1. A. 8. q. 4. sine * Lib. 1. §. 14. †Protest Apol. Tract 1. §. 10. N. 3. * L. 2. §. 4. †L. 2. §. 7. L. 3. §. 8. ‖ S. Joh. 5. 31. He speaks of himself as man S. Joh. 8. 13. * L. 2. §. 7. * L. 3. §. 8. A. C. p. 52. A. C. p. 52. A. C. p. 52. * S. Luke 16. 8. †1 S. Pet. 5. 3. ‖ S. Basil goes as far for Traditions as any For he says Parem vim habent ad pietatem L. de Sp. Sanct. c. 27. But first he speaks of Apostolical Tradition not of the Tradition of the present Church Secondly the Learned take exceptions to this Book of S. Basil as corrupted Bp. Aâ—dr Opuse cont Peron p. 9. Thirdly S. Basil himself Ser. de Fido prosesses that he uses sometimes Agrapha sed ea solùm quae non sunt aliena à piâ secundum Scripturam sententiá So he makes the Scripture their Touch-stone or tryal And therefore must of Necessity make Scripture superior in as much as that which is able to try another is of greater force and superior Dignity in that use than the thing tried by it And Stapleton himself confesses Traditionem recentiorem posteriorem sicut particularem nullo modo cum Scripturâ vel cum Traditionibus priùs à se explicatis comparandâ—m esse Stapleton Relect.
Follow me and I will make you fishers of men is as firm a truth as that which he delivered to his Disciples That he must die and rise again the third day For both proceed from the same Divine Revelation out of the mouth of our Saviour and both are sufficiently applied by one and the same full Authority of the Church which receives the whole Gospel of S. Matthew to be Canonical and Infallible Scripture And yet both these Propositions of Christ are not alike fundamental in the Faith For I dare say No man shall be saved in the ordinary way of Salvation that believes not the Death and the Resurrection of Christ. And I believe A. C. dares not say that no man shall be saved into whose capacity it never came that Christ made S. Peter and Andrew fishers of men And yet should he say it nay should he shew it sub annulo Piscatoris no man will believe it that hath not made shipwrack of his common Notions Now if it be thus between Proposition and Proposition issuing out of Christ's own Mouth I hope it may well be so also between even Just and True Determinations of the Church that supposing them alike true and firm yet they shall not be alike fundamental to all mens belief F. Secondly I required to know what Points the Bishop would account Fundamental He said all the Points of the Creed were such B. § 11 Num. 1 Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Divine is governed about the Faith since your own Councel of Trent Decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that profess Christ do necessarily agree fundamentum firmum unicum not the firm alone but the only foundation since it is Excommunication ipso jure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole Body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was believ'd even before the coming of Christ though not so expresly as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessary for all mens Salvation are in the Creed and the Decalogue what reason can you have to except And yet for all this every thing fundamental is not of a like nearness to the foundation nor of equal primeness in the Faith And my granting the Creed to be fundamental doth not deny but that there are quaedam prima Credibilia certain prime Principles of Faith in the bosom whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up One of which since Christ is that of S. John Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the coming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must believe that God is and that be is a rewarder of them that seek him Num. 2 Here A. C. tells you That either I must mean that those points are only fundamental which are expressed in the Creed or those also which are infolded If I say those only which are expressed then saith he to believe the Scriptures is not fundamental because 't is not expressed If I say those which are infolded in the Articles then some unwritten Church-Traditions may be accounted fundamental The truth is I said and say still that all the Points of the Apostles Creed as they are there expressed are fundamental And therein I say no more then some of your best Learned have said before me But I never either said or meant that they only are fundamental that they are Fundamentum unicum the only Foundation is the Councel of Trent's 't is not mine Mine is That the belief of Scripture to be the Word of God and Infallible is an equal or rather a preceding Prime Principle of Faith with or to the whole Body of the Creed And this agrees as before I told the Jesuite with one of your own great Masters Albertus Magnus who is not far from that Proposition in terminis So here the very foundation of A. C ' Dilemma falls off For I say not That only the Points of the Creed are fundamental whether expressed or not expressed That all of them are that I say And yet though the foundation of his Dilemma be fallen away I will take the boldness to tell A. C. That if I had said that those Articles only which are expressed in the Creed are fundamental it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture upon which the Creed it self in every Point is grounded For nothing is supposed to shut out its own foundation And if I should now say that some Articles are fundamental which are infolded in the Creed it would not follow that therefore some unwritten Traditions were fundamental Some Traditions I deny not true and firm and of great both Authority and Use in the Church as being Apostolical but yet not fundamental in the Faith And it would be a mighty large fold which should lap up Traditions within the Creed As for that Tradition That the Books of holy Scriptures are Divine and Infallible in every part I will handle that when I come to the proper place for it F. I asked how then it happened as M. Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. § 12 Num. 1 The English Church never made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plain they bear thâ—â—â— meaning before them She was content to put that Artiâ—â—â— among those to which she requires Subscription not as doubting of the sense but to prevent the Cavils of some who had been too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Cross or but an Exposition of it Num. 2 And surely for my part I think the Church of England is better resolved of the right sense of this Article then the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meer Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is every where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England never doubted it and S. Augustine proves it Num. 3 And yet again you are different for the sense For you agree not Whether the Soul of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his Death did go down into Hell really and was present there or vertually and by effects only For
into the Canon if the evidence of this Light were either Universal or Infallible of and by it self And this though I cannot approve yet methinks you may and upon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will deny but that there is as much light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it self to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Divine and infallibly the Unwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the †Apostles that the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to bear witness to their own Verity as the Church is to bear witness to her own Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selves would never go to the Scripture to prove that there are Traditions as you do if you did not think the Scripture as easie to be discovered by inbred light in it self as Traditions by their light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirm That Scripture may be known to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it self as it is which you affirm That a Tradition may be known to be such by the light which it hath in it self which is an excellent Proposition to make sport withal were this an Argument to be handled merrily Num. 11 3. For the third Opinion and way of proving either some think that there is no sufficient warrant for this unless they fetch it from the Testimony of the Holy Ghost and so look in vain after special Revelations and make themselves by this very Conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing private spirit or else you would fain have them think so For your side both upon this and other Occasions do often challenge That we resolve all our Faith into the Dictates of a private Spirit from which we shall ever prove our selves as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed upon that there must be a Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum under which can rest no possible errour That the Books of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which go to the testimony of the Holy Ghost for proof of this do mean by Faith Objectum Fidei the Object of Faith that is to be believed then no question they are out of the ordinary way For God never sent us by any word or warrant of his to look for any such special and private Testimony to prove which that Book is that we must believe But if by Faith they mean the Habit or Act of Divine infused Faith by which vertue they do believe the Credible Object and thing to be believed then their speech is true and confessed by all Divines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infused Habit in respect whereof the Soul is meerly recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that work which none can do but He. For the Holy Ghost as He first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles So did he not leave the Church in general nor the true members of it in particular without Grace to believe what himself had revealed and made Credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receive a kind of preparation or Occasion of Beginning from the Testimony of the Church as it proposeth and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God revealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God move the Heart of man he cannot believe be the Object never so Credible The speech is true then but quite out of the State of this Question which inquires only after a sufficient means to make this Object Credible and fit to be believed against all impeachment of folly and temerity in Belief whether men do actually believe it or not For which no man may expect inward private Revelation without the external means of the Church unless perhaps the case of Necessity be excepted when a man lives in such a time and place as excludes him from all ordinary means in which I dare not offer to shut up God from the Souls of men nor to tye him to those ordinary ways and means to which yet in great wisdom and providence He hath tied and bound all mankind Num. 12 Private Revelation then hath nothing ordinarily to do to make the Object Credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and evident means as other men may take notice of as well as our selves By which if there arise any Doubting or Infirmity in the Faith others may strengthen us or we afford means to support them Whereas the Testimony of the Spirit and all private Revelation is within nor felt nor seen of any but him that hath it So that hence can be drawn no proof to others And Miracles are not sufficient alone to prove it unless both They and the Revelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an unalterable Rule by man or Angel To all this A. C. says nothing save that I seem not to admit of an Infallible Impulsion of a private Spirit ex parte subjecti without any infallible Reason and that sufficiently applied ex parte objecti which if I did admit would open a gap to all Enthusiasms and dreams of fanatical men Now for this yet I thank him For I do not only seem not to admit but I do most clearly reject this phrensie in the words going before Num. 13 4. The last way which gives Reason leave to come in and prove what it can may not justly be denied by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heaven nor believe this Book in which God hath written the way yet Grace is never placed but in a reasonable Creature and proves by the very seat which it hath taken up that the end it hath is to be spiritual eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature only it cannot but never to blemish Reason in that which it can comprehend Now the use of Reason is very general and man do what he can is still apt to search and seek for a Reason why he will believe though after he once believes his Faith grows stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher and so upon a safer Principle than either of the other can in this life Num. 14 In this Particular the Books called the Scripture
are commonly and constantly reputed to be the Word of God and so infallible Verity to the least point of them Doth any man doubt this The world cannot keep him from going to weigh it at the Balance of Reason whether it be the Word of God or not To the same Weights he brings the Tradition of the Church the inward motives in Scripture it self all Testimonies within which seem to bear witness to it and in all this there is no harm the danger is when a man will use no other Scale but Reason or prefer Reason before any other Scale For the Word of God and the Book containing it refuse not to be weighed by Reason But the Scale is not large enough to contain nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue and full force of either Reason then can give no supernatural ground into which a man may resolve his Faith That Scripture is the Word of God infallibly yet Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the Authority of this Book stands upon surer grounds of Nature Reason common Equity and Justice than any thing in the World which any Infidel or meer Naturalist hath done doth or can adhere unto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himself Num. 15 The Ancient Fathers relied upon the Scriptures no Christians more and having to do with Philosophers men very well seen in all the subtilties which Natural Reason could teach or learn They were often put to it and did as often make it good That they had sufficient warrant to rely so much as They did upon Scripture In all which Disputes because they were to deal with Infidels they did labour to make good the Authority of the Book of God by such Arguments as Unbelievers themselves could not but think reasonable if they weighed them with indifferencie For though I set the Mysteries of Faith above Reason which is their proper place yet I would have no man think They contradict Reason or the Principles thereof No sure For Reason by her own light can discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true But all the Light she hath will never be able to find them false Nor may any man think that the Principles of Religion even this That Scriptures are the Word of God are so indifferent to a Natural eye that it may with as just cause lean to one part of the Contradiction as to the other For though this Truth That Scripture is the Word of God is not so demonstratively evident à priori as to enforce Assent yet it is strengthen'd so abundantly with probable Arguments both from the Light of Nature it self and Humane Testimony that he must be very wilful and self-conceited that shall dare to suspect it Num. 16 Nay yet farther It is not altogether impossible to prove it even by Reason a Truth infallible or else to make them deny some apparent Principle of their own For Example It is an apparent Principle and with them That God or the Absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of any Possession For if He could be forced by another Greater He were neither Prince nor Absolute nor God in their own Theologie Now they must grant That that God and Christ which the Scripture teaches and we believe is the only true God and no other with him and so deny the Deity which they worshipped or else deny their own Principle about the Deity That God cannot be commanded and forced out of possession For their Gods Saturn and Serapis and Jupiter himself have been adjured by the Name of the true and only God and have been forced out of the bodies they possessed and confessed themselves to be foul and seducing Devils And their Confession was to be supposed true in point of Reason For they that were adored as Gods would never belie themselves into Devils to their own reproach especially in the presence of them that worshipped them were they not forced This many of the Unbelievers saw therefore they could not in very force of Reason but they must either deny their God or deny their Principle in Nature Their long Custome would not forsake their God and their Reason could not forget their Principle If Reason therefore might judge among them they could not worship any thing that was under Command And if it be reasonable to do and believe this then why not reasonable also to believe That Scripture is his Word given to teach himself and Christ since there they find Christ doing that and giving power to do it after which themselves saw executed upon their Devil-Gods Num. 17 Besides whereas all other written Laws have scarce had the honour to be duly observed or constantly allowed worthy approbation in the Particular places where they have been established for Laws this Law of Christ and this Canon of Scripture the container of it is or hath been received in almost all Nations under Heaven And wheresoever it hath been received it hath been both approved for Unchangeable good and believed for Infallible verity This perswasion could not have been wrought in men of all sorts but by working upon their Reason unless we shall think all the World unreasonable that received it And certainly God did not give this admirable faculty of Reasoning to the Soul of man for any cause more prime than this to discover or to Judge and allow within the Sphere of its own Activity and not presuming farther of the way to Himself when and howsoever it should be discovered Num. 18 One great thing that troubled Rational men was that which stumbled the Manichee an Heresie it was but more than half Pagan namely That somewhat must be believed before much could be known Wise men use not to believe but what they know And the Manichee scorned the Orthodox Christian as light of Belief promising to lead no Disciple after him but upon evident knowledge This stumbles many but yet the Principle That somewhat must be believed before much can be known stands firm in Reason still For if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be proved if Reason be able to see this and confess it if almost all Artists have granted it if in the Mathematicks where are the Exactest Demonstrations there be Quaedam postulata some things to be first Demanded and granted before the Demonstration can proceed Who can justly deny that to Divinity A Science of the Highest Object God Himself which he easily and reasonably grants to inferiour Sciences which are more within his reach And as all Sciences suppose some Principles without proving so have they almost all some Text some Authority upon which they rely in some measure and it is Reason they should For though these Sciences make not their Texts Infallible as Divinity doth yet full consent and prudent Examination and long continuance have won reputation to them and setled reputation upon
yet we yeeld as full and firm Assent not only to the Articles but to all the Things rightly deduced from them as we do to the most evident Principles of Natural Reason This Assent is called Faith And Faith being of things not seen Heb. 11. would quite lose its honour nay it self if it met with sufficient Grounds in Natural Reason whereon to stay it self For Faith is a mixed Act of the Will and the Understanding and the Will inclines the Understanding to yeeld full approbation to that whereof it sees not full proof Not but that there is most full proof of them but because the main Grounds which prove them are concealed from our view and folded up in the unrevealed Counsel of God God in Christ resolving to bring mankind to their last happiness by Faith and not by knowledge that so the weakest among men may have their way to blessedness open And certain it is that many weak men believe themselves into Heaven and many over-knowing Christians lose their way thither while they will believe no more than they can clearly know In which pride and vanity of theirs they are left and have these things hid from them S. Matth. 11. Fourthly That the Credit of the Scripture the Book in which the Principles of Faith are written as of other writings also depends not upon the subservient Inducing Cause that leads us to the first knowledge of the Author which leader here is the Church but upon the Author himself and the Opinion we have of his sufficiencie which here is the Holy Spirit of God whose Pen-men the Prophets and Apostles were And therefore the Mysteries of Divinity contained in this Book As the Incarnation of our Saviour The Resurrection of the dead and the like cannot finally be resolved into the sole Testimony of the Church who is but a subservient Cause to lead to the knowledge of the Author but into the Wisdom and Sufficiencie of the Author who being Omnipotent and Omniscient must needs be Infallible Fifthly That the Assurance we have of the Pen-men of the Scriptures the Holy Prophets and Apostles is as great as any can be had of any Humane Authors of like Antiquity For it is morally as evident to any Pagan that S. Matthew and S. Paul writ the Gospel and Epistles which bear their Names as that Cicero or Seneca wrote theirs But that the Apostles were divinely inspired whilst they writ them and that they are the very Word of God expressed by them this hath ever been a matter of Faith in the Church and was so even while the Apostles themselves lived and was never a matter of Evidence and Knowledge at least as Knowledge is opposed to Faith Nor could it at any time then be more Demonstratively proved than now I say not scientifice not Demonstratively For were the Apostles living and should they tell us that they spake and writ the very Oracles of God yet this were but their own Testimony of themselves and so not alone able to enforce Belief on others And for their Miracles though they were very Great Inducements of Belief yet were neither they Evident and Convincing Proofs alone and of themselves Both because There may be counterfeit Miracles And because true ones are neither Infallible nor Inseparable Marks of Truth in Doctrine Not Infallible For they may be Marks of false Doctrine in the highest degree Deut. 13. Not proper and Inseparable For all which wrote by Inspiration did not confirm their Doctrine by Miracles For we do not find that David or Solomon with some other of the Prophets did any neither were any wrought by S. John the Baptist S. Joh. 10. So as Credible Signs they were and are still of as much force to us as 't is possible for things on the credit of Relation to be For the Witnesses are many and such as spent their lives in making good the Truth which they saw But that the Workers of them were Divinely and Infallibly inspired in that which they Preacht and Writ was still to the Hearers a matter of Faith and no more evident by the light of Humane Reason to men that lived in those Days than to us now For had that been Demonstrated or been clear as Prime Principles are in its own light both they and we had apprehended all the Mysteries of Divinity by Knowledge not by Faith But this is most apparent was not For had the Prophets or Apostles been ordered by God to make this Demonstratively or Intuitively by Discourse or Vision appear as clear to their Auditors as to themselves it did that whatsoever they taught was Divine and Infallible Truth all men which had the true use of Reason must have been forced to yeeld to their Doctrine Esay could never have been at Domine quis Lord who hath believed our Report Esay 53. Nor Jeremy at Domine factus sum Lord I am in derision daily Jer. 20. Nor could any of S. Pauls Auditors have mocked at him as some of them did Act. 17. for Preaching the Resurrection if they had had as full a view as S. Paul himself had in the Assurance which God gave of it in and by the Resurrection of Christ vers 31. But the way of Knowledge was not that which God thought fittest for mans Salvation For Man having sinned by Pride God thought fittest to humble him at the very root of the Tree of Knowledge and make him deny his understanding and submit to Faith or hazard his happiness The Credible Object all the while that is the Mysteries of Religion and the Scripture which contains them is Divine and Infallible and so are the Pen-men of them by Revelation But we and all our Forefathers the Hearers and Readers of them have neither knowledge nor vision of the Prime Principles in or about them but Faith only And the Revelation which was clear to them is not so to us nor therefore the Prime Tradition it self delivered by them Sixthly That hence it may be gathered that the Assent which we yeeld to this main Principle of Divinity That the Scripture is the Word of God is grounded upon no Compelling or Demonstrative Ratiocination but relies upon the strength of Faith more than any other Principle whatsoever For all other necessary Points of Divinity may by undeniable Discourse be inferred out of Scripture it self once admitted but this concerning the Authority of Scripture not possibly But must either be proved by Revelation which is not now to be expected Or presupposed and granted as manifest in it self like the Principles of natural knowledge which Reason alone will never Grant Or by Tradition of the Church both Prime and Present with all other Rational Helps preceding or accompanying the internal Light in Scripture it self which though it give Light enough for Faith to believe yet Light enough it gives not to be a convincing Reason and proof for
knowledge And this is it which makes the very entrance into Divinity inaccessible to those men who standing high in the Opinion of their own wisdom will believe nothing but that which is irrefragably proved from Rational Principles For as Christ requires a Denial of a mans self that he may be able to follow him S. Luke 9. So as great a part as any of this Denial of his Whole-self for so it must be is the denial of his Understanding and the composing of the unquiet search of this Grand Inquisitor into the Secrets of Him that made it and the over-ruling the doubtfulness of it by the fervency of the Will. Seventhly That the knowledge of the Supreme Cause of all which is God is most remote and the most difficult thing Reason can have to do with The Quod sit That there is a God blear-eyed Reason can see But the Quid sit what that God is is infinitely beyond all the fathoms of Reason He is a Light indeed but such as no mans Reason can come at for the Brightness 1 Tim. 6. If any thing therefore be attainable in this kind it must be by Revelation And that must be from Himself for none can Reveal but he that Comprehends And none doth or can comprehend God but Himself And when he doth Reveal yet he is no farther discernable than Himself pleases Now since Reason teaches that the Soul of man is immortal and capable of Felicity And since that Felicity consists in the Contemplation of the highest Cause which again is God himself And since Christ therein Confirms that Dictate that mans eternal Happiness is to know God and Him whom he hath sent S. Joh. 17. And since nothing can put us into the way of attaining to that Contemplation but some Revelation of Himself and of the way to Himself I say since all this is so It cannot reasonably be thought by any prudent man that the All-wise God should create man with a desire of Felicity and then leave him utterly destitute of all Instrumental Helps to make the Attainment possible since God and Nature do nothing but for an end And Help there can be none sufficient but by Revelation And once grant me that Revelation is necessary and then I will appeal to Reason it self and that shall prove abundantly one of these two That either there was never any such Revelation of this kind from the worlds beginning to this day And that will put the frustrà upon God in point of mans Felicitie Or that the Scriptures which we now embrace as the Word of God is that Revelation And that 's it we Christians labour to make good against all Atheism Prophaneness and Infidelity Last of all To prove that the Book of God which we honour as His Word is this necessary Revelation of God and his Truth which must and is alone able to lead us in the way to our eternal Blessedness or else the world hath none comes in a Cloud of witnesses Some for the Infidel and some for the Believer Some for the Weak in Faith and some for the Strong And some for all For then first comes in the Tradition of the Church the present Church so 't is no Heretical or Schismatical Belief Then the Testimony of former Ages so 't is no New Belief Then the consent of Times so 't is no Divided or partial Belief Then the Harmony of the Prophets and them fulfilled so 't is not a Devised but a forespoken Belief Then the success of the Doctrine contained in this Book so 't is not a Belief stifled in the Cradle but it hath spread through the world in despite of what the world could do against it And increased from weak and unlikely Beginnings to incredible Greatness Then the Constancie of this Truth so 't is no Moon-Belief For in the midst of the worlds Changes it hath preserved its Creed entire through many generations Then that there is nothing Carnal in the Doctrine so 't is a Chast Belief And all along it hath gained kept and exercised more power upon the minds of men both learned and unlearned in the increase of vertue and repression of vice than any Moral Philosophy or Legal Policie that ever was Then comes the inward Light and Excellencie of the Text it self and so 't is no dark or dazling Belief And 't is an Excellent Text For see the riches of Natural knowledge which are stored up there as well as Supernatural Consider how things quite above Reason consent with things Reasonable Weigh it well what Majesty lies there hid under Humility What Depth there is with a Perspicuity unimitable What Delight it works in the Soul that is devoutly exercised in it how the Sublimist wits find in it enough to amaze them while the ‖ simplest want not enough to direct them And then we shall not wonder if with the assistance of Gods Spirit who alone works Faith and Belief of the Scriptures and their Divine Authority as well as other Articles we grow up into a most Infallible Assurance such an Assurance as hath made many lay down their lives for this Truth such as that Though an Angel from Heaven should Preach unto us another Gospel we would not believe Him or it No though we should see as great and as many Miracles done over again to disswade us from it as were at first to win the world to it To which firmness of Assent by the Operation of Gods Spirit the Will confers as much or more strength than the Understanding Clearness the whole Assent being an Act of Faith and not of Knowledge And therefore the Question should not have been asked of me by F. How I knew But upon what Motives I did believe Scripture to be the word of God And I would have him take heed lest hunting too close after a way of Knowledge he lose the way of Faith and teach other men to lose it too So then the Way lies thus as far as it appears to me The Credit of Scripture to be Divine Resolves finally into that Faith which we have touching God Himself and in the same order For as that so this hath Three main Grounds to which all other are Reducible The first is the Tradition of the Church And this leads us to a Reverend perswasion of it The Second is The Light of Nature and this shews us how necessary such a Revealed Learning is and that no other way it can be had Nay more that all Proofs brought against any Point of Faith neither are nor can be Demonstrations but soluble Arguments The Third is The light of the Text it self in Conversing wherewith we meet with the Spirit of God inwardly inclining our hearts and sealing the full Assurance of the sufficiencie of all Three unto us And then and not before we are certain That the Scripture is the Word of God
first known and not need another thing pertaining to that Faith or Knowledge to be known before it But the Scripture saith he needs Tradition to go before it and introduce the knowledge of it Therefore the Scripture is not to be supposed as a Praecognitum and a thing fore-known Truly I am sorry to see in a man very learned such wilful mistakes For A. C. cannot but perceive by that which I have clearly laid down before That I intended not to speak precisely of a Praecognitum in this Argument But when I said Scriptures were Principles to be supposed I did not I could not intend they were prius cognitae known before Tradition since I confess every where That Tradition introduces the knowledge of them But my meaning is plain That the Scriptures are and must be Principles supposed before you can dispute this Question Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation Before which Question it must necessarily be supposed and granted on both sides That the Scriptures are the Word of God For if they be not 't is instantly out of all Question that They cannot include all Necessaries to Salvation So 't is a Praecognitum not to Tradition as A. C. would cunningly put upon the Cause but to the whole Question of the Scriptures sufficiencie And yet if he could tie me to a Praecognitum in this very Question and proveable in a Superior Science I think I shall go very near to prove it in the next Paragraph and intreat A. C. to confess it too Num. 4 And now having told A. C. this I must secondly follow him a little farther For I would fain make it appear as plainly as in such a difficulty it can be made what wrong he doth Truth and himself in this Case And it is the common fault of them all For when the Protestants answer to this Argument which as I have shew'd can properly have no place in the Question between us about Tradition they which grant this as a Praecognitum a thing fore-known as also I do were neither ignorant nor forgetful That things presupposed as already known in a Science are of two sorts For either they are plain and fully manifest in their own Light or they are proved and granted already some former knowledge having made them Evident This Principle then The Scriptures are the Oracles of God we cannot say is clear and fully manifest to all men simply and in self-Light for the Reasons before given Yet we say after Tradition hath been our Introduction the Soul that hath but ordinary Grace added to Reason may discern Light sufficient to resolve our Faith that the Sun is there This Principle then being not absolutely and simply evident in it self is presumed to be taught us otherwise And if otherwise then it must be taught in and by some superior Science to which Theology is subordinate Now men may be apt to think out of Reverence That Divinity can have no Science above it But your own School teaches me that it hath The sacred Doctrine of Divinity in this sort is a Science because it proceeds out of Principles that are known by the light of a Superior Knowledge which is the Knowledge of God and the Blessed in Heaven In this Superior Science This Principle The Scriptures are the Oracles of God is more than evident in full light This Superior Science delivered this Principle in full revealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles This Infâ—llible Light of this Principle made their Authority derivatively Divine By the same Divine Authority they wrote and delivered the Scripture to the Church Therefore from them immediately the Church received the Scripture and that uncorrupt though not in the same clearness of Light which they had And yet since no sufficient Reason hath or can be given that in any Substantial thing it hath been Corrupted it remains firm at this day and that proved in the most Supreme Science and therefore now to be supposed at least by all Christians That the Scripture is the Word of God So my Answer is good even in strictness That this Principle is to be supposed in this Dispute Num. 5 Besides the Jews never had nor can have any other Proof That the Old Testament is the Word of God than we have of the New For theirs was delivered by Moses and the Prophets and ours was delivered by the Apostles which were Prophets too The Jews did believe their Scripture by a Divine Authority For so the Jews argue themselves S. Joh. 9. We know that God spake with Moses And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses than they could in following God himself And our Saviour seems to infer as much S. Joh. 5. where he expostulates with the Jews thus If you believe not Moses his Writings how should you believe Me Now how did the Jews know that God spake to Moses How Why apparently the same way that is before set down First by Tradition So S. Chrysostome We know why By whose witness do you know By the Testimony of our Ancestors But he speaks not of their immediate Ancestors but their Prime which were Prophets and whose Testimony was Divine into which namely their Writings the Jews did resolve their Faith And even that Scripture of the Old Testament was a Light and a shining Light too And therefore could not but be sufficient when Tradition had gone before And yet though the Jews entred this way to their Belief of the Scripture they do not say Audivimus We have heard that God spake to Moses but We know it So they Resolved their Faith higher and into a more inward Principle than an Ear to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition And I would willingly learn of you if you can shew it me where ever any one Jew disputing with another about their Law did put the other to prove that the Old Testament was the Word of God But they still supposed it And when others put them to their Proof this way they went And yet you say F. That no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten to assure us of this Point B. § 19 Num. 1 I think I have shewed that my Answer is good and that no other Answer need be made If there were need I make no Question but another Answer might be made to assure us of this Point though we did not admit of any Word of God unwritten I say to assure us and you express no more If you had said to assure us by Divine Faith your Argument had been the stronger But if you speak of Assurance only in the general I must then tell you and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against Insidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiastical and Humane Proof Men that never saw Rome may be sure and infallibly believe That such a City
of all doubt For if there be reason of doubting the one there 's as much reason of doubting the other since they stand both on the same foot The Validity of Christ's Prayer for Saint Peter Num. 17 Yea but Christ charged S. Peter to govern and feed his whole stock S. John 21. Nay soft T is but his Sheep and his Lambs and that every Apostle and every Apostles Successor hath charge to do S. Matth. 28. But over the whole Flock I find no one Apostle or Successor set And 't is a poor shift to say as A. C. doth That the Bishop of Rome is set over the whole Flock because both over Lambs and Sheep For in every Flock that is not of barren Weathers there are Lambs and Sheep that is weaker and stronger Christians not People and Pastors Subjects and Governors as A. C. expounds it to bring the Necks of Princes under Roman Pride And if Kings be meant yet then the command is Pasce feed them But Deponere or Occidere to depose or kill them is not Pascere in any sense Lanii id est non Pastoris that 's the Butchers not the Shepherds part If a a Sheep go astray never so far 't is not the Shepherds part to kill him at least if he do non pascit dum oâ—cidit he doth not certainly feed while he kills Num. 18 And for the Close That the Bishop of Rome shall never refuse to feed and govern the whole stock in such sort as that neither particular Man nor Church shall have just cause under pretence of Reformation in Manners or Faith to make a Separation from the whole Church By A. C's favour this is meer begging of the Question He says the Pope shall ever govern the whole Whole Church so as that there shall be no just Cause given of a Separation And that is the very Thing which the Protestants charge upon him Namely that he hath governed if not the Whole yet so much of the Church as he hath been able to bring under his Power so as that he hath given too just Cause of the present continued separation And as the Corruptions in the Doctrine of Faith in the Church of Rome were the Cause of the first Separation so are they at this present day the Cause why the separation continues And farther I for my part am clear of Opinion that the Errors in the Doctrine of Faith which are charged upon the whole Church at least so much of the whole as in these parts of Europe hath been kept under the Roman Jurisdiction have had their Original and Continuance from this that so much of the Universal Church which indeed they account All hath forgotten her own Liberty and submitted to the Roman Church and Bishop and so is in a manner forced to embrace all the Corruptions which the Particular Church of Rome hath contracted upon it self And being now not able to free her self from the Roman Jurisdiction is made to continue also in all her Corruptions And for the Protestants they have made no separation from the General Church properly so called for therein A. C. said well the Popes Administration can give no Cause to separate from that but their Separation is only from the Church of Rome and such other Churches as by adhering to her have hazarded themselves and do now miscal themselves the Whole Catholike Church Nay even here the Protestants have not left the Church of Rome in her Essence but in her Errors not in the Things which Constitute a Church but only in such Abuses and Corruptions as work toward the Dissolution of a Church F. I also asked who ought to judge in this Case The B. said a General Councel B. § 26 Num. 1 And surely What greater or surer Judgment you can have where sense of Scripture is doubted than a General Councel I do not see Nor do you doubt And A. C. grants it to be a most Competent Judge of all Controversies of Faith so that all Pastors be gathered together and in the Name of Christ and pray unanimously for the promised assistance of the Holy Ghost and make great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other Grounds of Faith And then Decree what is to be held for Divine Truth For then saith he 't is Firm and Infallible or else there is nothing firm upon earth As fair as this Passage seems and as freely as I have granted that a General Councel is the best Judge on Earth where the sense of Scripture is doubted yet even in this passage there are some things Considerable As first when shall the Church hope for such a General Councel in which all Pastors shall be gathered together there was never any such General Councel yet nor do I believe such can be had So that 's supposed in vain and you might have learn'd this of Bellarmine if you will not believe me Next saith he If all these Pastors pray unanimously for the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost Why but if all Pastors cannot meet together all cannot pray together nor all search the Scriptures together nor all upon that Search Decree together So that is supposed in vain too Yea but Thirdly If all that meet do pray unanimously What then All that meet are not simply All. Nor doth the Holy Ghost come and give his Assistance upon every Prayer that is made unanimously though by very many Prelates or other Faithful People met together unless all other Requisites as well as Unanimity to make their prayer to be heard and granted be observed by them So that an Unanimous Prayer is not adequately supposed and therefore Concludes not But lastly how far a General Councel if all A. C's Conditions be observed is firm and Infallible that shall be more fully discussed at after In the mean time these two words Firm and Infallible are ill put together as Synonima's For there are some things most Infallible in themselves which yet could never get to be made firm among men And there are many things made firm by Law both in Churches and Kingdoms which yet are not Infallible in themselves So to draw all together to settle Controversies in the Church here is a Visible Judge and Infallible but not living And that is the Scripture pronouncing by the Church And there is a visible and a Living Judge but not Infallible and that is a General Councel lawfully called and so proceeding But I know no formal Confirmation of it needful though A. C. require it but only that after it is ended the Whole Church admit it be it never so tacitely Num. 2 In the next Place A. C. interposes new matter quite out of the Conference And first in case of Distractions and Disunion in the Church he would know what is to be done to Re-unite when a General Councel which is acknowledged a fit Judge cannot be had by reason of manifold impediments Or
if being called will not be of one mind Hath Christ our Lord saith he in this Case provided no Rule no Judge Infallibly to determine Controversies and to procure Unity and Certainty of Belief Indeed the Protestants admit no Infallible Means Rule or Judge but only Scripture which every man may interpret as he pleaseth and so all shall be uncertain Truly I must confess there are many Impediments to hinder the Calling of a General Councel You know in the Ancient Church there was hinderance enough and what hurt it wrought And afterward though it were long first there was provision made for frequent calling of Councels and yet no Age since saw them called according to that Provision in every Circumstance therefore Impediments there were enough or else some declined them wilfully though there were no Impediments Nor will I deny but that when they were called there were as many Practices to disturb or pervert the Councels And these Practices were able to keep many Councels from being all of one mind But if being called they will not be of one mind I cannot help that Though that very not agreeing is a shrewd sign that the other Spirit hath a party there against the Holy Ghost Now A. C. would know what is to be done for Re-uniting of a Church divided in Doctrine of the Faith when this Remedy by a General Councel cannot be had Sure Christ our Lord saith he hath provided some Rule some Judge in such and such like Cases to procure unity and certainty of Belief I believe so too for he hath left an Infallible Rule the Scripture And that by the manifest Places in it which need no Dispute no External Judge is able to settle Unity and Certainty of Belief in Necessaries to Salvation And in Non necessariis in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation Num. 4 And therefore A. C. does not well to make that a Crime that the Protestants admit no Infallible Rule but the Scripture only Or as he I doubt not without some scorn terms it beside only Scripture For what need is there of another since this is most Infallible and the same which the Ancient Church of Christ admitted And if it were sufficient for the Antient Church to guide them and direct their Councels why should it be now held insufficient for us at least till a free General Councel may be had And it hath both the Conditions which Bellarmine requires to a Rule Namely that it be Certain and that it be Known For if it be not certain it is no Rule and if it be not known 't is no Rule to us Now the Romanists dare not deny but this Rule is Certain and that it is sufficiently Known in the manifest Places of it and such as are necessary to Salvation none of the Antients did ever deny so there 's an Infallible Rule Num. 5 Nor need there be such fear of a Private Spirit in these manifest things which being but read or heard teach themselves Indeed you Romanists had need of some other Judge and he a propitious one to crush the Pope's more powerful Principality out of Pasce oves feed my sheep And yet this must be the meaning if you will have it whether Gideon's fleece be wet or dry Judg. 6. that is whether there be dew enough in the Text to water that sense or no. But I pray when God hath left his Church this Infallible Rule what warrant have you to seek another You have shewed us none yet what e're you think you have And I hope A. C. cannot think it follows that Christ our Lord hath provided no Rule to determine necessary Controversies because he hath not provided the Rule which he would have Num. 6 Besides let there be such a living Judge as A. C. would have and let the Pope be he yet that is not sufficient against the malice of the Devil and impious men to keep the Church at all Times from Renting even in the Doctrine of Faith or to soder the Rents which are made For Oportet esse Haereses 1 Cor. 11. Heresies there will be and Heresies properly there cannot be but in Doctrine of the Faith And what will A. C. in this Case do Will he send Christ our Lord to provide another Rule than the Decision of the Bishop of Rome because he can neither make Unity nor Certainty of Belief And as 't is most apparent he cannot do it de facto so neither hath he power from Christ over the Whole Church to do it nay out of all doubt 't is not the least reason why de facto he hath so little success because de Jure he hath no power given But since A. C. requires another Judge besides the Scripture and in Cases when either the time is so difficult that a General Councel cannot be called or the Councel so set that they will not agree Let 's see how he proves it Num. 7 'T is thus every earthly Kingdom saith he when matters cannot be composed by a Parliament which cannot be called upon all Occasions why doth he not add here And which being called will not always be of one mind as he did add it in Case of the Councel hath besides the Law-Books some living Magistrates and Judges and above all one visible King the Highest Judge who hath Authority sufficient to end all Controversies and settle Unity in all Temporal Affairs And shall we think that Christ the wisest King hath provided in his Kingdom the Church only the Law-Books of the Holy-Scripture and no living visible Judges and above all one Chief so assisted by his Spirit as may suffice to end all Controversies for Unity and Certainty of Faith which can never be if every man may interpret Holy Scripture the Law-Books as he list This is a very plausible Argument with the Many But the foundation of it is but a Similitude and if the Similitude hold not in the main the Argument's nothing And so I doubt it will prove here I 'le observe Particulars as they lie in order Num. 8 And first he will have the whole Militant Church for of that we speak a Kingdom But this is not certain For they are no mean ones which think our Saviour Christ left the Church Militant in the Hands of the Apostles and their Successors in an Aristocratical or rather a Mixt Government and that the Church is not Monarchical otherwise than the Triumphant and Militant make one Body under Christ the Head And in this sense indeed and in this only the Church is a most absolute Kingdom And the very Expressing of this sense is a full Answer to all the Places of Scripture and other Arguments brought by Bellarm. to prove that the Church is a Monarchy But the Church being as large as the world Christ thought it fitter to govern it Aristocratically by Divers
Nay make it appear that ever any Prophet in that which he delivered from God as infallible Truth was ever discursive at all in the Means Nay make it but probable in the ordinary course of Prophecie I hope you go no higher nor will I offer at God's absolute Power That that which is discursive in the Means can be Prophetick in the Conclusion you shall be my great Apollo for ever In the mean time I have learnt this from yours That all Prophecy is by Vision Inspiration c. that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophecie is an Illumination not always present but when the Word of the Lord came to them that was not by discourse And yet you say again That this Prophetick Infallibility of the Church is not gotten without study and Industry You should do well to tell us too why God would put his Church to study for the Spirit of Prophecie which never any Particular Prophet was put unto And whosoever shall studie for it shall not do it in vain since Prophecie is a Gift and can never be an acquired Habit. And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authority of General Councels dares not come at this Rock He prefers the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the Deliberations of Councels and so do we but I do not remember that ever he speaks out That the Conclusion is delivered by Prophecie or Revelation Sure he sounded the shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speak plainly would his bad Cause let him be constant Councels do deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neither have they nor do they write any immediate Revelations Num. 4 The second Reason why Stapleton will have it Prophetick in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be believed though it use Means yet it stands not upon Art or Means or Argument but the Revelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but an Habit of Knowledge This for the first Part That the Church uses the Means but follows them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the later Part That then our admitting the Decree of a Councel would be no Assent of Faith but an Habit of Knowledge what great inconvenience is there if it be granted For I think it is undoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Believer that cannot prove and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing even this the very wisdom of the Church in her Doctrines ascribes Understanding to one sort of men and Belief to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him Num. 5 Now for farther satisfaction if not of you yet of others this may well be thought on Man lost by sin in the Integrity of his Nature and cannot have Light enough to see the way to Heaven but by Grace This Grace was first merited after given by Christ this Grace is first kindled by Faith by which if we agree not to some Supernatural Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply we can never see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it self clears the eye of Reason it never puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the very Catholike Church it self is reasonable as well as diffused every where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath been able either to convert or convince or at least stop the mouthes of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the very Point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamental Points of Faith without which there is no Salvation as they cannot be proved by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councel nor ever were they attempted they are so plain set down in the Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessary deduction out of these Prime Articles of Faith General Councels determine any thing as they have done in Nice and the rest there is no inconvenience that one and the same Canon of the Councel should be believed as it reflects upon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable and yet known to the Learned by the Means and Proof by which that Deduction is vouched and made good And again the Conclusion of a Councel suppose that in Nice about the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father in it self considered is indemonstrable by Reason There I believe and assent in Faith But the same Conclusion if you give me ground of Scripture and the Creed and somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or Knowledge is demonstrable by natural Reason against any Arrian in the world And if it be demonstrable I may know it and have an Habit of it And what inconvenience in this For he weaker sort of Christians which cannot deduce when they have the Principle granted they are to rest upon the Definition onely and their Assent is meer Faith yea and the Learned too where there is not a Demonstration evident to them assent by Faith onely and not by Knowledge And what inconvenience in this Nay the necessity of Nature is such that these Principles once given the understanding of man cannot rest but it must be thus And the Apostle would never have required a man to be able to give a Reason and an account of the hope that is in him if he might not be able to know his account or have lawful interest to give it when he knew it without prejudicing his Faith by his Knowledge And suppose exact Knowledge and meer Belief cannot stand together in the same Person in regard of the same thing by the same means yet that doth not make void this Truth For where is that exact knowledge or in whom that must not meerly in points of Faith believe the Article or ground upon which they rest But when that is once believed it can demonstrate many things from it And Definitions of Councels are not Principia Fidei Principles of Faith but Deductions from them Num. 1 And now because you ask Wherein are we nearer to Unity by a Councel if a Councel may erre Besides the Answer given I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church which most able to preserve or reduce Christian Peace The Romane That a Councel cannot erre or the Protestants That it can And this I propose not as a Rule but leave the Christian world to consider of it
That it would call again and reform yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance upon just cause made evident that this Representing Body had failed in Trust or Truth And this Power no Body Collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Councel or call it what you will that represents it Nay in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councel hath power to order settle and Define differences arisen concerning Faith This Power the Councel hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparent Apostolical Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held have is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches power front God And this Power the Church cannot farther give away to a General Councel than that the Decrees of it shall binde all Particulars and it self but not binde the whole Church from calling again and in the After-calls upon just Cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts. I say upon just Cause For if the Councel be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approve the Councel and then the Definitions of it are Binding And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her own may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her Representative Body a Lawful General Councel And certain it is no Power but her own may do it Nor doth this open any gap to private Spirits For all Decisions in such a Councel are Binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councel shall remain the Supreme External Living Temporary Ecclesiastical Judge of all Controversies Onely the Whole Church and she alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendred to her to represent her self again in a new Councel and in it to order what was amiss Num. 7 Nay your Opinion is yet more unreasonable For you do not onely make the Definition of a General Councel but the Sentence of the Pope infallible nay more Infallible than it For any General Councel may erre with you if the Pope confirm it not So belike this Infallibility rests not in the Representative Body the Councel nor in the Whole Body the Church but in your Head of the Church the Pope of Rome Now I may ask you to what end such a trouble for a General Councel Or wherein are we nearer to Unity if the Pope confirm it not You answer though not in the Conference yet elsewhere That the Pope erres not especially giving Sentence in a General Councel And why especially Doth the Deliberation of a Councel help any thing to the Conclusion Surely not in your Opinion For you hold the Conclusion Prophetical the means fallible and fallible Deliberations cannot advance to a Prophetick Conclusion And just as the Councel is in Stapleton's Judgement for the Definition and the Proofs so is the Pope in the Judgement of Melch. Canus and them which followed him Prophetical in the Conclusion The Councel then is called but onely in effect to hear the Pope give his Sentence in more state Else what means this of Stapleton The Pope by a Councel joyned unto him acquires no new Power or Authority or Certainty in Judging no more than a Head is the wiser by joyning the Offices of the rest of the members to it than it is without them Or this of Bellarmine That the firmness and infallibility of a General Councel is onely from the Pope not partly from the Pope and partly from the Councel So belike the Presence is necessary not the Assistance Which opinion is the most groundless and worthless that ever offered to take possession of the Christian Church And I am perswaded many Learned men among your selves scorn it at the very heart And I avow it I have heard some Learned and Judicious Romane Catholikes utterly condemn it And well they may For no man can affirm it but he shall make himself a scorn to all the Learned men of Christendom whose Judgements are not Captivated by Romane power And for my own part I am clear of Jacobus Almain's Opinion And a great wonder it is to me That they which affirm the Pope cannot erre do not affirm likewise that he cannot sin And I verily believe they would be bold enough to affirm it did not the daily Works of the Popes compel them to believe the Contrary For very many of them have led lives quite Contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Nay such lives as no Epicurean Monster storied out to the world hath out-gone them in sensuality or other gross Impiety if their own Historians be true Take your choice of John the thirteenth about the year 966. Or of Sylvester the second about the year 999. Or John the eighteenth about the year 1003. Or Benedict the ninth about the year 1033. Or Boniface the eighth about the year 1294. Or Alexander the sixth about the year 1492. And yet these and their like must be Infallible in their Dictates and Conclusions of Faith Do your own believe it Surely no. For Alphonsus à Castro tells us plainly That he doth not believe that any man can be so gross and impudent a flatterer of the Pope as to attribute this unto him that he can neither erre nor mistake in expounding the holy Scripture This comes home And therefore it may well be thought it hath taken a shrewd Purge For these words are Express in the Edition at Paris 1534. But they are not to be found in that at Colen 1539. Nor in that at Antwerp 1556. Nor in that at Paris 1571. Harding says indeed Alphonsus left it out of himself in the following Editions Well First Harding says this but proves it not so I may chuse whether I will believe him or no. Secondly be it so that he did that cannot help their Cause a whit For say he did mislike the sharpness of the Phrase or ought else in this speech yet he alter'd not his Judgement of the thing For in all these later Editions he speaks as home if not more than in the first and says Expresly That the Pope may erre not onely as a private person but as Pope And in difficult Cases he addes That the Pope ought to Consult Viros doctos men of Learning And this also was the Opinion of the Ancient Church of Christ concerning the Pope and his Infallibility For thus Liberius and he ◠Pope himself writes to Athanasius Brother Athanasius if you think in the presence of God and Christ as I do I pray subscribe this Confession which is thought to be the true Faith of the Holy Catholike and Apostolike Church that
is or can make me But if he ask how I know infallibly I believe them in their true and uncorrupted sense Then I answer There 's no man of knowledge but he can understand the plain and simple Decision expressed in the Canon of the Councel where 't is necessary to Salvation And for all other debates in the Councels or Decisions of it in things of less moment 't is not necessary that I or any man else have Infallible Assurance of them though I think 't is possible to attain even in these things as much Infallible Assurance of the uncorrupted sense of them as A. C. or any other Jesuites have Num. 6 A. C. asks again What Text of Scripture tells That Protestants now living do believe all this or that all this is expressed in those particular Bibles or in the Writings of the Fathers and Councels which now are in the Protestants hands Good God! Whither will not a strong Bias carry even a learned Judgment Why what Consequence is there in this The Scripture now is the onely Ordinary Infallible Rule of Divine Faith Therefore the Protestants cannot believe all this before mentioned unless a particular Text of Scripture can be shewed for it Is it not made plain before how we believe Scripture to be Scripture and by Divine and Infallible Faith too and yet we can shew no particular Text for it Beside were a Text of Scripture necessary yet that is for the Object and the thing which we are to believe not for the Act of our believing which is meerly from God and in our selves and for which we cannot have any Warrant from or by Scripture more than that we ought to believe but not that we in our particular do believe The rest of the Question is far more inconsequent VVhether all this be expressed in the Bibles which are in Protestants hands For first we have the same Bibles in our hands which the Romanists have in theirs Therefore either we are Infallibly sure of ours or they are not Infallibly sure of theirs For we have the same Book and delivered unto us by the same hands and all is expressed in ours that is in theirs Nor is it of moment in this Argument that we account more Apocryphal than they do For I will acknowledge every Fundamental point of Faith as proveable out of the Canon as we account it as if the Apocryphal were added unto it Secondly A. C. is here extreamly out of himself and his way For his Question is VVhether all this be expressed in the Bibles which we have All this All what Why before there is mention of the four General Councels and in this Question here 's mention of the Writings of the Fathers and the Councels And what will A. C. look that we must shew a Text of Scripture for all this and an express one too I thought and do so still 't is enough to ground Belief upon Necessary Consequence out of Scripture as well as upon express Text. And this I am sure of that neither I nor any man else is bound to believe any thing as Necessary to Salvation be it found in Councels or Fathers or where you will if it be Contrary to express Scripture or necessary Consequence from it And for the Copies of the Councels and Fathers which are in our hands they are the same that are in the hands of the Romanists and delivered to Posterity by Tradition of the Church which is abundantly sufficient to warrant that So we are as Infallibly sure of this as 't is possible for any of you to be Nay are we not more sure For we have used no Index Expurgatorius upon the Writings of the Fathers as you have done So that Posterity hereafter must thank us for true Copies both of Councels and Fathers and not you Num. 7 But A. C. goes on and asks still Whether Protestants be Infallibly sure that they rightly understand the sense of all which is expressed in their Books according to that which was understood by the Primitive Church and the Fathers which were present at the four first General Councels A. C. may ask everlastingly if he will ask the same over and over again For I pray wherein doth this differ from his Question save onely that here Scripture is not named For there the Question was of our Assurance of the Incorrupted sense And therefore thither I refer you for Answer with this That it is not required either of us or of them that there should be had an Infallible assurance that we rightly understand the sense of all that is expressed in our Books And I think I may believe without sin that there are many things expressed in these Books for they are theirs as well as ours which A. C. and his Fellows have not Infallible assurance that they rightly understand in the sense of the Primitive Church or the Fathers present in those Councels And if they say Yes they can because when a difficulty crosses them they believe them in the Churches sense Yet that dry shift will not serve For belief of them in the Churches sense is an Implicite Faith but it works nothing distinctly upon the understanding For by an Implioite Faith no man can be infallibly assured that he doth rightly understand the sense which is A. C's Question whatever perhaps he may rightly believe And an Implicite Faith and an Infallible understanding of the same thing under the same Considerations cannot possibly stand together in the same man at the same time Num. 8 A. C. hath not done asking yet But he would farther know Whether Protestants can be Infallibly sure that all and onely those points which Protestants account Fundamental and necessary to be expresly known by all were so accounted by the Primitive Church Truly Unity in the Faith is very Considerable in the Church And in this the Protestants agree and as Uniformly as you and have as Infallible Assurance as you can have of all points which they account Fundamental yea and of all which were so accounted by the Primitive Church And these are but the Creed and some few and those Immediate deductions from it And †Tertullian and Ruffinus upon the very Clause of the Catholike Church to decipher it make a recital onely of the Fundamental Points of Faith And for the first of these the Creed you see what the sense of the Primitive Church was by that Famous and known place of Irenaeus where after he had recited the Creed as the Epitome or Brief of the Faith he adds That none of the Governours of the Church be they never so potent to Express them selves can say alia ab his other things from these Nor none so weak in Expression as to diminish this Tradition For since the Faith is One and the same He that can say much of it says no more than he ought Nor doth he diminish it that can say but little And in
in the Apostles that witnessed it But to make it knowledge in the Auditors the same or like Revelation and as clear must be made to them For they could have no other knowing Assurance Credible they might and had So A. C. is wary there but comes not home to the Business and so might have held his peace For the Question is not what clear Evidence the Apostles had but what Evidence they had which heard them * Esay 53. 1. †Jer. 20. 7. ‖ Acts 17. 32. And had Zedechiah and the people seen it as clearly as Jeremy himself did that the word he spake was Gods word and Infallible Jerusalem for ought we know had not been laid desolate by the Chaldean But because they could not see this by the way of knowledge and would not believe it by way of Faith they and that City perished together Jer. 38. 17. * Nemo pius nisi qui Scripturae credit S. Aug. L. 26. cont Fanstum c. 6. Now no Man believes the Scripture that doth not believe that it is the Word of God I say which doth not believe I do not say which doth not know Oportet quod Credatur Authoritati eorum quibus Revelatio facta est Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quod vero Animam habemus unde manifestum Si enim Visibilibus credere velis de Deo de Angelis de meute de Animâ dubitabis sic tibi omnia veritatis dogmata deperibunt Et certé si manifestis credere velis Invisibilious magis quà m Visibilibus credere oportet Licet enim admirabile sit dictum verum tamen apud mentem habentes valde certum vel in confesso Ex homil 13. S. Chrysost. in S. Mat. To. 1. Edit Fronto Paris 1636. * Nemo pius nisi qui Scripturae credit S. Aug. L. 26. cont Fanstum c. 6. Now no Man believes the Scripture that doth not believe that it is the Word of God I say which doth not believe I do not say which doth not know Oportet quod Credatur Authoritati eorum quibus Revelatio facta est Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quod vero Animam habemus unde manifestum Si enim Visibilibus credere velis de Deo de Angelis de meâ—te de Animâ dubitabis sic tibi omnia veritatis dogmata deperibunt Et certé si manifestis credere velis Invisibilious magis quà m Visibilibus credere oportet Licet enim admirabile sit dictum verum tamen apud mentem habentes valde certum vel in confesso Ex homil 13. S. Chrysost. in S. Mat. To. 1. Edit Fronto Paris 1636. Pun. 6. †And this is the Ground of that which I said before §. 15. Nu. 1. That the Scripture only and not any unwritten Tradition was the Foundation of our Faith Namely when the Authority of Scripture is first yeelded unto S. Luke 9. 23. ‖ Intellectus Credentis determinatur per Voluntatem non per Rationem Tho. 2. 2. q. 2. A. 1. ad tertium And what power the Will hath in Case of mens Believing or not Believing is manifest Jer. 44. But this is spoken of the Will compared with the Understanding only leaving the Operations of Grace free over both Pun. 7. b Coâ—â—n â—ijis enim sententia est Patrum Theologorum aliorum demonstrari posse naturali ratione Deum esse Sed à posteriori per effectus Sic Tho. p. 1. q. 2. A. 2. Et Damasc. I. 1 Ortho. Fid. c. 3. Almain in 3. sent D. 24. q. 1. But what may be demonstrated by natural reason by natural light may the same be known And so the Apostle himself Rom. 1. 20. Invisibilia Dei a Creaturâ mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntut And so Calvin most clearly I. 1. Instit. c. ◠§. 1. Aperire oculos nequeunt quin aspicere eum coguntur though Bellarmine would needs be girding at him L. 4. de Grat. Lib. Arbit cap. 2. Videtur autem Ratio iis quae apparent attestari Omnes enim homines de Diis ut ille loquitur habent existimationem Arist. I. 1. de Coelo T. 22. c Damasc. L. 1. Ortho. Fid. c. 4. d 1 Tim. 6. 16. Et uâ— Vestiglum sic accedendi relinquit S. Aug. nisi dugeas imaginatione cogitationis lucem solis innumerabiliter vel quid aliud c. â— 8. de Trin. c. 2. Solus modus accedendi Preces sunt Boet. de Consolat Philos. L. 5. prosa 3. e Prates Scientias Philosophicas necesse est ut ponatur alia Scientia divinitâ—s revelata de iis quae hominis captum excedunt Tho. p. 1. q. 1. A. 1. f And therefore Biel is express That God could not reveal any thing that is to come nisi illud esset â— Deo praescitum seu praevisum i. e. unless God did fully comprehend that which he doth reveal Biâ—l in 3. sent D. 23. q. 2. A. 1. g Nullus Intellectus Creatus videndo Deum potest cognoscere Omnia que Deus facit vel potest facere Hoc enim esset Comprehendere ejus virtutem c. Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. C. Ad Argumentum Quod Deus ut Speculum est Et quod omnia quae fieri possunt in eo resplendent Respondet Thom. Quod non est necessarium quod videns speculum omnia in speculo videat nisi speculum vtsu suo comprehendat Tho. p. 1. q. 12. A. 8. ad 2. Now no man can comprehend this Glass which is God Himself h Deus enim est Speculum voluntarium revelans quae quot vult alicui beato non est Speculum naturaliter repraesentans omnia Biel. Suppl in 4. Sent. D. 49. q. 3. propos 3. i For if Reason well put to its search did not find this out how came Arist. to affirm this by rational disquisition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Restat ut mens sola extrinsecùs accâ—dat eaque sola divina sit nihil enim cum ejus Actione communicat Actio corporalis Arist. l. 2. de gen Anim. c. 3. This cannot be spoken of the Soul were it mortal And therefore I must needs be of Paulus Benius his opinion who says plainly and proves it too Turpiter affixam à quibusdam Aristottli Mortalitatis Animae Opinionem Benius in Timaeum Platonis Decad. 2 â— L. 3. k For if Reason did not dictate this also whence is it that Aristotle disputes of the way and means of attaining it L. 1. Moral c. 9. And takes on him to prove That Felicity is rather an Honourable than a Commendable thing c. 12. And after all this he adds Deo beata tota vita est hominibus autem catenus quatenus similitudo quaedam ejusmodi Operationis ipsis inest Arist. L. 10. Moral c. 8. l S. John 17. 3. Ultima Beatitudo
de Bapt. cont Donat. c. 3. Ipsaque plenaria saepe priâ—ra à posterioribus emâ—ndarâ— * §. 21. N. 5. * I know the Greeks subscribed that Councel Sed in iâ—â—o Concilio Graeca Ecclesia diâ— restitit Pet. Mart. Loc. com classe tertiâ c. 9. Nu. 13. Et in ultimâ Sessione istius Concilii Graeci dixerunt se siâ—e Authoritate totius Ecclesiae Orientalis Questionem aliam tractare non posse praeter illam de processione Spiritus Sancti Postea verò consentiâ—nte Imperatore tractárunt de aliis c. Florent Con. Sess. ult apud Nicolinum To. 4. p. 894 c. This favours of some art to bring in the Greeks Howsoever this shews enough against Bellarmint That all the Greeks did not constantly teach Purgatory as he affirms L. 1. de Purgat c. 11. §. De tertio modo †Concil Trid. Sess. 25. in Bullâ Pii 4. super formâ Jurameâ—ti professionis Fidei * Omnes veteres Graeci Latini ab ipso tempore Apostolorum constanter docuerunt Purgatorium esse Bel. L. 1. de Pur. c 11. §. De tertio modo †Bel. Lib. 1. de Purg. c. 6. §. 1. a Jaco Usher Armachan In his answer to the Jesuites Challenge c. 7. p. 194. b Sunt apertissima Loca in Patribus ubi asserunt Purgarium Bel. L. 1. de Purg. c. 6. §. Deindesunt c Tert. L. de Anâ— c. 17. Infer d Cypr. L. 4. Ep. 2. Emâ—â—dayi igne e Origen L. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 6. S. Hieron in Jonae 3. Bellar. L. 1. de Purg. c. 2. §. Porro non S Aug. L. 21. Civ Dei c. 17. f Aug. L. 2â— Civ Dei c. 17. g S. Amb. in Psal. 36. 14. h 1 Cor. 3. 15. i S. Hieron in 66 Isai. fine * S Hiero. L. 4. cont Pelag. ultra medium †S. Basil. in Isai. 9. ‖ Paulin. Ep. 1. * Greg. Naz. Orat. 39. fine †I think the first that ever used that phrase Baptism by fire was Origen And he used it for Martyrdom as clearly appears by a passage of his in Euseb. L. 6. Hist. c. 4. Edit Graec. Lat. Collâ—niae Allob. 1612. ‖ Lact. L. 7. c. 21. * S. Hilar. in Ps. 118. v. 20. ‖ Boetius L. 4. Pros. 4. * Theo. in 1 Cor. 3. †Bellarm. L. 1. de Purgato c. 5. §. Ex Graecis habemus ‖ S. Greg. Nyss. Orat. de Mortuis p. 1066. Edit Paris 1615. Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 1067. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ibid. p. 1068. * Item definimus si verè poenitentes in Dei charitate decesserint antequam dignis poenitentiae fructibus de Commissis Omissis satisfecerint poenis Purgatoriis post mortem purgari Concil Floren. circa prin per Bin. Edit Colon. 1618. * S. Greg. Nyss. da Animâ Resur Tom. 2. p. 658. †S. Greg. Orat. 3. de Resurrect Christi ‖ Non expedit philosophari altâ—ùs c. Orig. L. 6. cont Celsum a Constat Animas purgari post hanc vitam S. August Lib. 21. Civ Dei c. 24. vide b Justorum flagella non incipiunt post mortem sed desinunt Et Anima mox in Paradisum c. S. Aug. contr Foelicianum c. 15. Et duo tantum loca esse c. S. Aug. Ser. 19. de verb. Apost c. 15. Et L. 21 de Civ Dei c. 16 fine Negat nisi sit Ignis ille in Consummatione saecult c Quaeri potest c. S. Aug. in Enchirid. c. 69. Forsitan verum est c. S Aug. L. 21. de Civ Dei c. 26. Quid S Paulus senserit 1 Cor. 3. de Igne illo male intelligentiores doctiores andire S. Aug. L. de Fide Oper. c. 16. d S. Greg. in Psal. 3. Poenitentialem princ * Quod Universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolicá traditum rectissimè creditur S. Aug. L. 4 de Bapt. Cont. Donatist c. 24. Nec ad Summâ—s Pontifices referri potest Addit Melch. Canus L. 3. de Locis c. 4. prin †Non invenimus initium hujus dogmatis sed omnes veteres Graeci Latini c. Bellar. L. â— de Purg. c. 11. §. De tertio modo ‖ L. 1. de Purg. c. 6. * §. 38. N. 16. †Bellar. L. 1. de Purgat c. 3. 4. ‖ De tertio modo perspicuum est c. Bellar. L. 1. de Purgat c. 11. §. Tertiò ex Verbo c. §. De tertio modo c. * Omnes veteres Graci Latini c. Bellarm. L. 1. de Parga c. 11. §. Detertio modo †De Purgatorio in Antiquis Scriptoribus potissinùm Graecis ferè nulla mentio est Quâ de causâ usque in hodiernum diem Purgatorium non est â—d Graecis creditum Alphon. à Castro L. 8. advers Haeres Verbo Indulgentia ‖ Purgatorium nullum esse est manifeste 〈◊〉 c M. Anton. de Do 〈…〉 〈…〉 Pâ—â—â—s 10â—â— p. 17. Meâ—â—â—a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—qua quâ— suâ—â—â—â—us 〈◊〉 in Ecclesia 〈…〉 Articâ—ls Fundamentales 〈…〉 Revelation quâ—m 〈…〉 Ibid p. 32. And so much A. C. himself says of all Points in which in the Doctrine of the Faith 〈◊〉 differ from them In his Relation of the first Conference p. 28. A. C. p. 71 A. C. p. 71. * â— 38. Na. ◠†Though every Thing defined to be a Divine Truth in General Councels is not absolutely necessary to be expresly known and actually believed by all sorts c. A. C. p. 71. A. C. p. 71. Rom. 10. 14 15. * Alios ab 〈◊〉 Caâ—â—â—itae Scripturâ— ita 〈…〉 quantalibet sanctitate doctr 〈…〉 non ideo vtrum â—â—tem qâ—â—d â—â—si ita 〈◊〉 vel scripserunt 〈◊〉 1. q. 1. A. 8. ad 2. Ex S. Aug. Ep. 〈…〉 non creâ—â—â— nisi Demonstr Demonstr 〈…〉 accipias ex sacris Literiâ— S. Cyril Hierosol Cat. †A. C. p. 〈…〉 ‖ Verba hac Apostole 〈◊〉 possunt intelligi de Fide insusa illa enim immediatè à Deo creata est non est ex auditu ut haec Apertissimè colligitar ex Biel in 3 Sent. D. 23. q. 2. A. 2. Coâ—â—l 1. Ergo Fides acquisita necessariâ— est Ibid. sed praeter Acquisitam Insusa etiam requiritur non solum propter Intentionem Actus sed etiam propter Assensum Certitudinem Quia non potest esse firmus Assensus à Fide acquisita Quia per cum nuâ—us credi alicui nisi quem scit posse falli fallere licet credat cum non Velle fallere Scotus in 3 Sent. D. 23. q. unica Therefore in the Judgment of your own School your Preachers can both deceive and be deceived And therefore certainly are not Infallible And M. Canus very expresly makes this but an Introduction to Infallible Faith Primum ergo id status juxta Corâ—munem Legâ—m aliqua exteriora humana incitamenta
there is by Historical and acquired Faith And if Consent of Humane Story can assure me this why should not Consent of Church-story assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles delivered this Body of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Jews Enemies to Christ they bear witness to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations give in evidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other Enemies of Christianity can give such a Worthy and Consenting Testimony for any Authority upon which they rely or almost for any Principle which they have as the Scripture hath gained to it self And as is the Testimony which it receives above all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Divine Authority in a Word written or Unwritten A great assurance and it is Infallible too Only then we must distinguish Infallibility For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Object of Belief when it is true and remains so For Truth quà talis as it is Truth cannot deceive Secondly a thing is said to be Infallible when it is not only true and remains so actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and upon such ground as that no Degree of falshood at any time in any respect can fall upon it Certain it is that by Humane Authority Consent and Proof a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired Habit of Faith cui non subest falsum under which nor Error nor falshood is But he cannot be assured insallibly by Divine Faith cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falshood can come but by a Divine Testimony This Testimony is absolute in Scripture it self delivered by the Apostles for the Word of God and so sealed to our Souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motive is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Divine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolve our Faith but only as is before expressed Num. 2 And now to come close to the Particular The time was before this miserable Rent in the Church of Christ which I think no true Christian can look upon but with a bleeding heart that you and We were all of One Belief That belief was tainted in tract and corruption of times very deeply A Division was made yet so that both Parts held the Creed and other Common Principles of Belief Of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God For our belief of all things contained in it depends upon it Since this Division there hath been nothing done by us to discredit this Principle Nay We have given it all honour and ascribed unto it more sufficiencie even to the containing of all things necessary to salvation with Satis superque enough and more than enough which your selves have not done do not And for begetting and setling a Belief of this Principle we go the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you Because we allow the Tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing Motive to embrace this Principle only we cannot go so far in this way as you to make the present Tradition always an Infallible Word of God unwritten For this is to go so far in till you be out of the way For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church it hath an end not only to receive us in but another after to let us out into more open and richer ground And we go a better way than you Because after we are moved and prepared and induced by Tradition we resolve our Faith into that Written Word and God delivering it in which we find materially though not in Terms the very Tradition that led us thither And so we are sure by Divine Authority that we are in the way because at the end we find the way proved And do what can be done you can never settle the Faith of man about this great Principle till you rise to greater assurance than the Present Church alone can give And therefore once again to that known place of S. Augustine The words of the Father are Nisi commoveret Unless the Authority of the Church moved me but not alone but with other Motives else it were not commovere to move together And the other Motives are Resolvers though this be Leader Now since we go the same way with you so far as you go right and a better way than you where you go wrong we need not admit any other Word of God than we do And this ought to remain as a Presupposed Principle among all Christians and not so much as come into this Question about the sufficiencie of Scripture between you and us But you say that F. From this the Lady called us and desiring to hear Whether the Bishop would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church The B. granted That it was B. § 20 Num. 1 One occasion which moved Tertullian to write his Book d◠Praescript adversus Haereticos was That he saw little or no Profit come by Disputations Sure the Ground was the same then and now It was not to deny that Disputation is an Opening of the Understanding a sifting out of Truth it was not to affirm that any such Disquisition is in and of it self unprofitable If it had S. Stephen would not have disputed with the Cyrenians nor S. Paul with the Grecians first and then with the Jews and all Comers No sure it was some Abuse in the Disputants that frustrated the good of the Disputation And one Abuse in the Disputants is a Resolution to hold their own though it be by unworthy means and disparagement of truth And so I find it here For as it is true that this Question was asked so it is altogether false that it was asked in this form or so answered There is a great deal of Difference especially as Romanists handle the Question of the Church between The Church and A Church and there is some between a True Church and a Right Church which is the word you use but no man else that I know I am sure not I. Num. 2 For The Church may import in our Language The only true Church and perhaps as some of you seem to make it the Root and the Ground of the Catholike And this I never did grant of the Roman Church nor ever mean to do But A Church can imply no more than that it is a member of the Whole And this I never did nor ever will deny if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church I granted also but not a Right as you impose upon me For Ens and Verum Being and True are convertible one with another and every thing that hath a Being is
at Credimus we believe eternal Punishment but he goes no farther than Arbitramur we think there is a Purging So with him it was Arbitrary And therefore sure no Matter of Faith then And again he saith That some Christians may be saved post poenas after some punishments indured but he neither tells us Where nor When. S. Basil names indeed Purgatory fire but he relates as uncertainly to that in 1 Cor. 3. as S. Ambrose doth As for Paulinus he speaks for Prayer for the dead but not a word of Purgatory And the Place in S. Gregory Nazianzen is far from a manifest Place For he speaks there of Baptism by fire which is no usual phrase to signifie Purgatory But yet say that here he doth there 's a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fortassis a peradventure in the words which Bellarmine cunningly leaves out And if it be a Peradventure ye shall then be Baptized with fire why then 't is at a Peradventure too that ye shall not Now such Casual stuff as this peradventure you shall and peradventure you shall not is no Expression for things which are valued to be de side and to be believed as Matters of Faith Bellarmine goes on with Lactantius but with no better success For he says indeed That some men perstringentur igne shall be sharply touched by fire But he speaks of such quorum peccata praevaluerunt whose sins have prevailed And they in Bellarmine's Doctrine are for Hell not Purgatory As for S. Hilary he will not come home neither 'T is true he speaks of a Fine too and one that must be indured but he tells us 't is a punishment expiandae à peccatis animae to purge the soul from sins Now this will not serve Bellarmine's turn For they of Rome teach That the sins are forgiven here and that the Temporal Punishment onely remains to be satisfied in Purgatory And what need is there then of purging of sins Lest there should not be Fathers enough he reckons in Boetius too But he though not long before a Convert yet was so well seen in this Point that he goes no farther than Puto I think that after death some souls are exercised purgatoriâ clementiâ with a Purgative Clemency But Puto I think 't is so is no expression for Matter of Faith The two pregnant Authorities which seem to come home are those of Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret But for Theodoret in Scholiis Graecis which is the Place Bellarmine quotes I can finde no such Thing And manifest it is Bellarmine himself took it but upon trust And for S. Gregory Nyssen 't is true some places in him seem plain But then they are made so doubtful by other Places in him that I dare not say simply and roundly what his Judgment was For he says Men must be purged from Perturbations and either by Prayers and Philosophy or the study of Wisdome or by the furnace of Purgatory-fire after this life And again That a man cannot be partaker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine nature unless the Purging-fire doth take away the stains that are in his Soul And again That after this life a Purgatory-fire takes away the blots and propensity to evil And I deny not divers other like places are in him But first this is quite another thing from the Roman Purgatory For S. Gregory tells us here that the Purgatory he means purges Perturbations and stains and blots and propensity to evil Whereas the Purgatory which Rome now teaches purges not sin but is only satisfactory by way of punishment for sins already forgiven but for which satisfaction was not made before their Death Secondly S. Gregory Nyssen himself seems not obscurely to relate to some other Fire For he says expresly That the soul is to be punished till the Vitiosity of it be consumed Purgatorio igne So the Translation renders it but in the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in a fire that sleeps not which for ought appears may be understood of a Fire that is eternal whereas the fire assigned to Purgatory shall cease Besides S. Gregory says plainly The Soul cannot suffer by sire but in the Body and the Body cannot be with it till the Resurrection Therefore he must needs speak of a fire after the Resurrection which must be either the Fire of the General Conflagration or Hell Purgatory he cannot mean Where according to the Romish Tenet the Soul suffers without the Body The truth is Divers of the Ancient especially Greeks which were a little too much acquainted with Plato's School philosophized and disputed upon this and some other Points with much Obscurity and as little Certainty So upon the whole matter in the fourth and fifth hundred year you see here 's none that constantly and perspicuously affirm it And as for S. Augustine he said and unsaid it and at the last left it doubtful which had it then been received as a Point of Faith he durst not have done Indeed then in S. Gregory the Great 's time in the beginning of the sixth Age Purgatory was grown to some perfection For S. Gregory himself is at Scio 't was but at Puto a little before I know that some shall be Expiated in Purgatory flames And therefore I will easily give Bellarmine all that follow For after this time Purgatory was found too warm a business to be suffered to Cool again And in the after Ages more were frighted than led by proof into the Belief of it Num. 17 Now by this we see also That it could not be a Tradition For then we might have traced it by the smoke to the Apostles times Indeed Bellarmine would have it such a Tradition For he tells us out of S. Augustine That that is rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical Authority which the whole Church holds and hath ever held and yet is not Instituted by any Councel And he adds That Purgatory is such a Tradition so Constantly held in the whole Church Greek and Latine And that we do not finde any beginning of this Belief Where I shall take the boldness to Observe these three things First that the Doctrine of Purgatory was not held ever in the whole Catholike Church of Christ. And this appears by the proofs of Bellarmine himself produced and I have before examined For there 't is manifest that scarce two Fathers directly affirm the belief of Purgatory for full six hundred years after Christ. Therefore Purgatory is no Matter of Faith nor to be believed as descending from Apostolical Authority by S. Augustine's Rule Secondly that we can finde a beginning of this Doctrine and a Beginner too namely Origen And neither Bellarmine nor any other is able to shew any one Father of the Church that said it before him Therefore Purgatory is not to be believed as a Doctrine delivered
by Apostolical Authority by Bellarmine's own rule For it hath a Beginning Thirdly I observe too that Bellarmine cannot well tell where to lay the foundation of Purgatory that it may be safe For first he labours to found it upon Scripture To that end he brings no fewer then ten places out of the Old Testament and nine out of the New to prove it And yet fearing lest these places be strained as indeed they are and so too weak to be laid under such a vast pile of Building as Purgatory is he flies to unwritten Tradition And by this Word of God unwritten he says 't is manifest that the Doctrine of Purgatory was delivered by the Apostles Sure if Nineteen places of Scripture cannot prove it I would be loth to flie to Tradition And if Recourse to Tradition be necessary then certainly those places of Scripture made not the proof they were brought for And once more how can Bellarmine say here That we finde not the Beginning hujus dogmatis of this Article when he had said before that he had found it in the Nineteen places of Scripture For if in these places he could not finde the beginning of the Doctrine of Purgatory he is false while he says he did And if he did finde it there then he is false here in saying we finde no beginning of it And for all his Brags of Omnes Veteres all the Ancient Greek and Latine do constantly teach Purgatory Yet Alphons à Castro deals honestly and plainly and tells us That the mention of Purgatory in Ancient Writers is ferè nulla almost none at all especially in the Greoks And he addes That hereupon Purgâ—tory 〈◊〉 not believed by the Graecians to this very day And what noâ— I pray after all this may I not so much as delâ—berately doubt of this because 't is now Defined and but now in a manner and thus No sure So A. C. tells you Doubt No For when you had fooled the Archbishop of Spalatâ— back to Rome there you either made him say or said it for him for in Print it is and under his Name That since 't is now defined by the Church a man is as much bound to believe there is a Purgatory as that there is a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead How far comes this short of Blasphemy to make the Trinity and Purgatory things alike and equally Credible Num. 18 Yea but A. C. will give you a Reason why no man may deliberately doubt much less deny any thing that is defined by a General Councel And his Reason is Because every such doubt and denyal is a breach from the one saving faith This is a very good reason if it be true But how appears it to be true How why it takes away saith A. C. Infallible credit from the Church and so the Divine Revelation not being sufficiently applied it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods providence breed Infallible Belief in us Why but deliberately to doubt and constantly to deny upon the grounds and in the manner aforesaid doth not take away Infallible credit from the whole Church but onely from the Definition of a General Councel some way or other misled And that in things not absolutely Necessary to all mens Salvation for of such things A. C. here speaks expresly Now to take away Infallible credit from some Definitions of General Councels in things not absolutely necessary to Salvation is no breach upon the one saving Faith which is necessary nor upon the Credit of the Catholike Church of Christ in things absolutely necessary for which onely it had Infallible assistance promised So that no breach being made upon the Faith nor no Credit which ever it had being taken from the Church the Divine Revelation may be and is as sufficiently applied as ever it was and in the ordinary course of Gods providence may breed as Infallible belief in things necessary to Salvation as ever it did Num. 19 But A. C. will prove his Reason before given and therefore he asks out of S. Paul Rom. 10 Now shall men believe unless they hear How shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they preach to wit Infallibly â—â—less they be senâ— that is from God and infallibly assisted by his Spirit Here 's that which I have twice at least spoken to already namely That A. C. by this will make every Priest in the Church of Rome that hath Learning enough to preach and dissents not from that Church an Infallible Preacher which no Father of the Primitive Church did ever assume to himself nor the Church give him And yet the Fathers of the Primitive Church were sent and from God were assisted and by God and did sufficiently propose to men the Divine Revelation and did by it beget and breed up Faith saving Faith in the Souls of men Though no one among them since the Apostles was an Infallible Preacher And A. C. should have done very well here to have made it manifest That this Scripture How shall they preach to wit infallibly is so interpreted by Union Consent of Fathers and Definitions of Councels as he bragged before that they use to interpret Scripture For I do not finde How shall they preach to wit Infallibly to be the Comment of any one of the Fathers or any other approved Author And let him shew it if he can Num. 20 After this for I see the good man is troubled and forward and backward he goes he falls immediately upon this Question If a whole General Councel defining what is Divine Truth be not believed to be sent and assisted by Gods Spirit and consequently of Infallible Credit what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit Well first A. C. hath very ill luck in fitting his Conclusion to his Premises and his Consequent to his Antecedent And so 't is here with him For a General Councel may be assisted by God's Spirit and in a great measure too and in a greater than any private man not inspired and yet not consequently be of Infallible credit for all assistance of God's Spirit reaches not up to Infallibility I hope the Antient Bishops and Fathers of the Primitive Church were assisted by God's Spirit and in a plentiful measure too and yet A. C. himself will not say they were Infallible And secondly for the Question it self If a General Councel be not what man in the world can be said to be of Infallible Credit Truly I 'll make you a ready Answer No man Not the Pope himself No Let God and his Word be true and every man a Lyer Rom. 3. for so more or less every man will be found to be And this is neither dammage to the Church nor wrong to the person of any Num. 21 But then A. C. asks a shrewder Question than this If such a Councel lawfully called continued and confirmed may erre in