will not hear the Church Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and Publican Here you see all Causes of greater Importance are to be brought to this Judge for if even private complaints are to be brought into her Tribunal and if for disobedience after her Judgement given of them a man be to be hold for a Publican or Heathen much more are enormiously hurtful crimes such as are the crimes of Heresie to be carried to her Tribunal and those who in so much more Importing matters disobey are also much more to be held for Publicans and Heathens And that no man may think that after this his condemnation he may stand well in his Interiour persisting still in the same judgement and doing so stand right in the sight of God it followeth Amen I say unto you Prelates of my Church VVhatsoever ye shall bind upon Earth shall also be bound in Heaven You see I have found a Judge so securely to be followed in his Judgement and so unsafely to be disobeyed that his Sentence given upon Earth is sure to be ratified in Heaven This also could not be true if this Judge were fallible in such prime causes as most concern the Church and all such causes are those which may bring in damnable Errors Conformably to this doctrine of the Church her being our Judge Saint Austin de Civit. l. 20.9 expounds to our purpose those words of the Apocalypse or Revelation cap. 20. ver 4. I saw Seats and they sate upon them and Judgement was given them It is not to be expounded of the last Judgement but of the Seats of Prelates and the Prelates themselves by which the Church is now governed are to be understood All this which I have said out of the New Testament you will the lesse wonder at if you Note that even in the Old Law it is said The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and they shall require the Law from his Mouth because he is the Angel of the Lord God of Hosts Mal 2. Note here a grosse corruption of the English Bible which readeth these words The Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth whereas the Originals speak clearly in the future Tense Here by the way I must tell you that though the Scripture were to be Judge yet your most corruptd English Scriptures cannot be allowed for Judge Whence it followeth that those who do understand onely English can judge of nothing by their Scripture And so they must trust their Ministers to the full as much even in this highest point as we do our Priests in any point But let us proceed You see first that I have found a way so direct that fools cannot erre by it for any man may ask the Priests of the Church what is the known Doctrine of the Church and then let him rest securely when he knoweth that Secondly you see I have found such a Judge as all true believers had for all their Controversies for more then two thousand years together before Moses did write the first Books of Scripture all which time you must needs make the Tradition of the Church the infallible Rule of Faith for here was no written Word of God upon which their Faith could be built and yet Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4. speaking of those who lived in those Ages before all Scripture saith They had the same Spirit of Faith And the reason is clear for the Word of God is the same whether it be revealed by the Pen or by the Tongue written or not written And what saith St. Irenaus l. 3. c. 4. if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures Must we not have followed that order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose Charges they left the Churches to be governed To this order of Tradition by the unwritten word many of those barbarous Nations do assent who have believed in Christ without any writing or Inke having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and keeping diligently the ancient Traditions So St. Irenaeus who you see holdeth manifestly unwritten Traditions of the Church to be a sufficient Ground of Faith It is most manifestly true which he saith that upon this ground the Faith of whole Nations have relyed This ground therefore is infallible all Nations Faith relying on this even two Thousand years and more before the first Scriptures were written and the Faith of many other Nations who since their writing have believed and do believe the true Faith For how many of them never did see the Scriptures at all or never did see them in a Language which they could understand Neither did the Apostles or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as they could all or the greater part understand They thought the Tradition of the Church a sufficient Rule of Faith for all which they could not do if this Rule were fallible We must therefore confesse it to be Infallible Thirdly I have not onely found a Judge so clearly pointing out the way that fools cannot erre by it but such a Judge as no exception can be taken against his sufficiency for no other Judge was in the Church for some Thousands of years amongst the most true Beleevers and afterwards amongst whole Nations Fourthly I have found a Judge to whom Christ hath given a certain Promise to teach no damnable error by which Doctrine the Gates of Hell should prevail against her Fiftly I have found a Judge whom All men are obliged I say obliged by Interiour Assent in point of Faith to obey under pain of being held here for Heathens or Publicans and looked upon as such by the Judgement of Heaven binding what the Church bindeth Sixtly I have found a living Judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time and who can hear Me and You and be heard by Me and You that neither I nor You can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we doubt we can propose our doubt and she will tell us clearly her meaning whereas the Bible can neither hear a Thousand new Controversies which arise daily nor be heard clearly to give any certain Sentence in them but onely say the same still which she said even before the Controversies began and about which Sentence of hers all the Controversie did arise neither doth the Bible give any such Judgement as will suffice to hold these and these men who teach these and these errors for Heathens and Publicans which the Church doth so clearly and so manifestly that they themselves cannot deny themselves to be condemned by the Church together with their Doctrine but all they can do is to raile against their Judge which the damned shall do against Christ their Judge I see no exception there can be made against this Judge Onely you will tell me that Infallibility is wholly necessary for the Judge of Faith which I
ever Now of no Kingdome in the world but of the Kingdome of Christs Church this can be understood This Church therefore shall stand for ever And consequently at no time it shall fall into damnable errors for then it is true to say It doth not stand but is faln most damnably Again in Isaiah 29. God doth clearly declare his Covenant with his Church according to the Interpretation of Saint Paul himself Rom. 11.26 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is upon thee and the words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever But how could the Word of the Lord more depart from the Mouth of the Church then if she should with her mouth teach damnable errors From this therefore he secureth his Church for ever and ever Hence Saint Austin saith l. de Unitat. Eccl. cap. 6 7 12 13. See him also l. 20. de Civit. cap. 8. in Psalm 85. de Utilit Credendi c. 8. Whosoever affirmeth the Church to have been overthrown as it were if at any time it should teach any damnable error doth rob Christ of his glory and Inheritance bought with his precious Blood yea Saint Hierom cont Lucifer c. 6. goeth farther and averreth that He that so saith doth make God subject to the Devil and a poor miserable Christ The reason is because this Assertion doth after a sort bereave the whole Incarnation Life and Passion of our Saviour of their Effect and End which was principally to found a Church and Kingdome in this world which should endure to the day of Judgement and direct Men in all Truth to Salvation Wherefore whosoever affirmeth the Church to have perished taketh away this effect and Prerogative from his Incarnation Life and Passion and avoucheth that at some times Man had no means left to attain to everlasting blisse which is also repugnant to the Mercy and goodnesse of God He also maketh God subject to the Devil in making the Devil stronger then Christ and affirming him to have overthrown Christs Church and Kingdome which our Lord promised should never be conquered That the Holy Fathers did believe the Church of Christ to be Infallible and of an Authority sufficient to ground Faith upon appeareth by their relying onely upon her Authority in the chiefest Articles of Faith which is to believe such and such Books are the true Word of God and upon this onely ground they ground this their Faith as in the 12. Number I have shewed Saint Athanasius Saint Hierome Saint Austin Tertullian and Eusebius to have received such Books for Gods Word and to have not received others and to have received such with veneration of Divine Authority as St. Austin spoke And upon this infallible Authority they all believed God the Father not to be begotten God the Sonne to be begotten by his Father onely and to be Consubstantiall to him and God the Holy Ghost not to be begotten but to proceed from both Father and Son Upon this infallible Authority they all held children to be baptized though nothing for certain could be alledged out of the Canonical Scriptures in this point but onely the Catholique Church taught this to be done as in the 16th Numb have shewed out of St. Austin who there calleth this relying on the Churches Authority The most true inviolable Rule of Faith And S. Chrysostome there also saith that these unwritten Traditions of the Church infallible onely in her Authoritie are as worthy of faith and credit as that which is written in Scripture And in the 19th Numb I have shewed out of St. Irenaeus That we should have bin as much obliged to believe although no Scriptures had been written as we are now and that the faith of whole Nations is grounded not in Scripture but consequently on the infallible Authority of the Church whose word he calleth the Word of God as I shewed in the end of the 22th Number I summe up all these Authorities that my Adversary may not say as he did that the authority of St. Austin was single when he believed the Gospel to be Gods Word upon the infallible authority of the Church for if her authority be by so many Fathers acknowledged infallible then St. Austin is not single in his opinion in this point But because that place of St. Austin speaketh home and because my Adversary saith That if we take this passage by it self it seemeth to speak high but saith he if we consider the tenour of Saint Austins discourse in the whole chapter It is like we will begin to think that it came from him in some heat of spirit to overcome his Adversary For these causes I say I will consider the tenour of St. Austins Discourse in this whole Chapter and I will shew manifestly that this his Doctrine was so far from coming out from him in some heat of Spirit to overcome his adversary that he maketh it the very prime Ground of his discourse and without he will stand to that Ground he there must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary This Chapter is the fourth Chapter Cont. Ep. Manichaei The whole substance of it is this The Epistle of Manichaeus beginneth thus Manichaeus the Apostle of Jesus Christ by the Providence of God the Father I ask therefore saith Saint Austin who this Manichaeus is You will answer the Apostle of Christ I do not believe it Perhaps you will read the Gospel unto me endevouring thence to prove it And what if you did fall upon one who did not as yet believe the Gospel what would you do then if such an one said I do not believe you This is his first Argument to shew that his Adversary by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle could prove nothing against those who as yet have not believed the Gospel then he goeth on But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel and so this Answer cannot serve me notwithstanding I must tell you that I am such an one that I would not believe the Gospel without the Authority of the Catholick Church did move me This being the ground of his Answer you shall see how he builds upon this and onely this Ground It followeth then thus I having therefore obeyed those Catholique Pastors saying Believe the Gospel the most Important point of Points Why should I not obey them saying to me do not believe Manichaeus Then upon this ground he presseth home saying Chuse which you will if you say believe the Catholiques then I must not believe you for they teach me not to give Faith to you wherefore believing them as I do I cannot believe you Now if you say do not believe the Catholiques then you do not go consequently to force me by the Gospel to give Faith to Manichaeus
ground established the necessarinesse of an Infallible Judge I need go no further till this be made sure I need not have any thing to do with your assumption indeed if I may be so free a presumption Yet lest you should take it amisse or ill if I should say nothing to it by it selfe I shall not let it passe without some notice of it But what you say at first here that if we finde out this Judge we can never remain in any doubt for without all doubt we must stand to the judgement of this Judge what reasons soever our private judgement or discretion may suggest So you this spoyles all and this is an argument against you that which you say is little else then Contradictio in adjecto as they speak If we must submit our judgements to an Infallible Judge pretended whatsoever reasons of Scripture I mean we have to the contrary then there is no such Judge for it is impossible for us in our judgements to assent to that for which we see reasons of Scripture to the contrary Take Reason simply and so in matters of Faith it must quiescere as the School phrase is as a principle because the doctrine of Faith is supernatural in the judgement of Aquinat at the beginning of his Summs but take Reason as an Instrument for the finding out of the sense of Scripture and so what moments we finde in Scripture for any opinion we cannot sink in any determinations on Earth As far as the understanding sees appearance of Truth it doth necessarily leap and run to it and will not leave it for any Authority under Heaven and therefore while the reason of Authority is not so clearly drawn from the Word of God as the reason of his Opinion in his own judgement it cannot give up its assent And if we are by duty to go your way of absolute credence to the dictates of your Judge we must then if he saies Vices are Vertues say so too as your Cardinal Bellarmin determins in his 4. Book de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. And thus you again see whither your blind obedience will lead you even from darknesse to darknesse In the seventh Number you lay to our charge an agreement with all Hereticks that have risen up against the Church because we as all Protestants do hold that the Scripture is the onely Judge by which all doubts and differences and Controversies of Religion are to be determined with Infallible Authority To this Saint Austin answers l. de Trinit cap. 38. We also answer to this charge first as before that Hereticks have urged Authority too and therefore by your argument you must quit your way of the Authority of the Church or else grant us our way of Scripture notwithstanding Secondly doth it follow rationally that because the Hereticks have misapplyed Scripture therefore we should not rightly apply it If the Standard be made use of to ill purpose of measuring stoln commodities therefore shall not other measures be ruled hereby It is accidental to Scripture to be thus abused shall it therefore loose its proper priviledge because as Saint Peter saith some who are unlearned and unsetled wrest Scriptures to their destruction therefore those who are learned and setled may not improve it to their Salvation because Robbers make use of the light of the Sun for actions unrighteous and wicked therefore honest men may not use the Light for their lawful imployments Is this good reasoning You had surely raised your discourse to the height if you had told us that we must not urge Scripture because the Devil did urge it unto our Saviour Christ So one indeed concludes as if the Devil did not apprehend what kinde of argument our Saviour would own and what reject therefore did he not set upon him with Tradition of the Church as is noted Neither did Christ reply upon him with Tradition but with Scripture which is a better Argument that this is to be our Rule which we should be be ordered by Thirdly The Hereticks did not presse that which was true Scripture but either corrupted it as Tertullian observes in his praescriptions or took onely so much as was for their use or perverted the sense of it so that if Scripture doth consist in the sense they did not bring Scripture for their proof but that which is not Scripture Fourthly Why doth Bellarmine and others of your Writers so frequently endevour to uphold their Doctrines by Scripture if because the Hereticks use it we must not Neither do they plead Scripture by the Traditional sense of the Church but by their own Interpretations When Scripture seems to them to speak for them then they produce Scripture but when they are oppressed with clear testimonies against them then little respect is given thereunto Fifthly If Controversies are not to be ended by Scripture which the Hereticks plead then how are they to be ended by the judgement of the Church Yes you will say but how shall Hereticks know if they doubt what or which is the true Church it must be by the Scripture so that our last recourse must be to Scripture Again if Hereticks must be perswaded by the Church then are they led if not by their private judgements yet by private judgements of others For besides that the Church consists of private Men the consent of the whole if they could be certain of it being compared to Scripture in way of contradistinction hath it self by manner of private judgement All the publick power it hath it hath by God and Scripture then here again we must end Again how shall Hereticks know that all Controversies are to be ended by the Church they must know it either by their own judgements of discretion which you deny to us or by the Church What in its own cause or by Scripture so we must resolve our selves in Scripture analytically we must bottome there synthetically we must begin there Sixthly This practice of Hereticks if it hath reason to make us forsake Scripture hath it not reason also to make you retract your expressions of your self as towards Scripture that you do professe all reverence and all credit to be due to Scripture as the Infallible word of God insomuch that you are ready to give your lives in defence of any thing conteined herein Will you stand to your words If you will then must you believe that whatsoever is necessary is declared therein sufficiently For what saith the Scripture by Saint Paul Gal. 1.8 If I or an Angel from Heaven preach to you any other Doctrine besides what you have received let him be Anathema And what then becomes of your unwritten word on behalf whereof you wisely cry up the infallibility of the Church in points of Religion For as for the distinction of your men hereupon that the Text is to be understood of that which is against it not of that which is beside it is invalid for it is in the Text beside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
if one be sufficient why the other if both be necessarie then either is not sufficient So then if the Scripture be the most sufficient ground of Faith when it be known to be the Word of God and the sense of it then I have contradicted you and you have contradicted your self For I say as you say that it is most true that the Scripture is the most sufficient ground of Faith And two sufficients there are not in the same kind Yes you say but first the Scripture must be known by infallible authoritie to be the Word of God Well but we both beleeve that the Scripture is the Word of God and by infallible authoritie we do beleive the Scripture to be the Word of God because we do believe it by the authoritie of it self which you say is infallible And if you believe it by infallible authoritie of the Church as you think you must go to Scripture for this authoritie then is not the Church a sufficient ground because it needs the Scripture to prove the Church and confirm its authoritie And therefore my concluding was contradictorie since your supposition of two sufficient grounds is false Well and how shall we know evidentlie whether this is the sense of Scripture By the authoritie of the Church you say And why then do they not by their authoritie evidentlie deliver unto us the sense of Scripture in everie difficultie If it cannot it is insufficient if it will not it is uncharitable and besides you fall into the same danger again For where hath it this authoritie by the Scripture then the Scripture is the sufficient ground again and this not And when the Church in a Council doth decide a controversie best it doth so by principles of Scripture applying them to particular cases and the determinations of the Church have themselves to the Scripture but as conclusions and the Scripture hath it self to those conclusions as the principle And therefore properlie the principles are believed and the conclusions are credible not by themselves but by participation from the Principles So that as the prime Principles are the ground of all Science so are the Principles of Scripture the ground of all Faith And the first Principle in Theologie must be this that the Scripture is the Word of God and so the ground of Faith And if the Church be not subordinate it is opposite to Scripture as the first Principle and so stands by it self and must fall to the ground And if you say it is not necessarie to umpire all doubts then you say as we say and why then an infallible Judge And forasmuch as we doe believe the Scripture to be the Word of God why do you contend because we do not believe it as you believe it but if you intend your Treatise in charitie you might have spared your labour For we are in a surer condition then you can be upon your Principles You believe the Scripture by the authoritie of the Church and we believe it by that by which the Church hath its authoritie So that the Scripture is not onely the first ground in regard of Order but also of Causalitie because the Church hath no ground but by Scripture Therefore we like your intention better then your judgement Neither do we denie the moment of the authoritie of the Catholick Church towards Faith so that we have all the authoritie of Heaven and Earth for our belief And if there were a doubt and in us a possibilitie of errour by apprehension that we cannot be assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God by the Church yet our errour would not be so dangerous because we should erre in honour of Scripture as yours is or would be who erre in honour of the Church Also must I observe your ingenuitie again here that you do profess it as most true that the Scripture is the most sufficient ground of Faith when we know by infallible authoritie that it is the Word of God and that such and such is the sense thereof If there be degrees of Truth and sufficiencie then are we more secure if degrees of Truth and sufficiencie to us then are we yet more right And also this doth deduct from your universalitie of faith in your first paper by the proposal of the Church in all things For my second third and fourth and fifth answer the Paragraphs of your Discourse or Treatise have in them nothing whith hath any potential contrarietie to them which I have not fully as I think taken away In your Application you make to or against my sixth answer you seem to take another argument to perswade me that the Scripture and the Church may both be grounds of Faith It is by way of interrogation Can I not say you ground my Faith upon what Saint Peter saith because I can ground it upon that which Saint Paul saith We answer your question is out of question but your consequence from thence is unsolid and unjudicious because they were both inspired in their Doctrine but it is yet again in question whether the Church be infalliblie inspired and we can be infalliblie assured thereof the reason being not the same your reasoning sinks Yet you insist further Why is the Scripture the rule of Faith Because it delivereth to me Gods written VVord but the Church delivereth to me Gods VVord written and unwritten I may therefore rule my self by that So you I answer This argument hath no strength to weaken that which I laid down before that there are not two sufficicient grounds of Faith because the Church is but a Ministerial rule and subordinate to Scripture and so subordinately a rule as to that VVord of God which is written and therefore can it not ground or order my Faith by its own Vertue but onely by proportion to Scripture and so is not a rule equal to Scripture intensively And if you conceive your argument should have any force because the Church doth exceed the Scripture extensively in that it delivereth the VVord written and unwritten Surely you are much mistaken by your supposition that there is a VVord of God not written in points of Faith equally credible to that which is written It is to be proved not supposed Your reasoning rather hath force against your self The Church is not a rule infallible because it delivereth to us a VVord of God not written for herein it mainly erres The Scripture is not onely a necessarie rule but also sufficient most sufficient And therefore they bring in tradition by way of supplement you say it is a sufficient rule in that you say it is a sufficicient ground of Faith therefore must you expunge tradition This rule of Scripture you say is often so crookedly applied that we had need of better securitie of interpretation then our own judgement of discretion So you First this is accidental to the rule and therefore it doth not infringe its prerogative Secondly by this Argument if you drive it to
the not being a rule upon this account the traditions and the testimonies of the Fathers cannot be a rule because they have been abused Thirdly We do not intend the use of the judgement of discretion to rest in that upon an interpretation nor do we oppose it to the authoritie of the Church but we say this must be satisfied in Articles and matters of Faith notwithstanding the decisions of the Church by consonance thereof to Scripture otherwise it cannot give the assent of Divine Faith Every one must be perswaded in his own mind although he doth not make his own sense This private judgement should neither be blind nor heady it respects authoritie but joyneth only with appearance of the Word of God That which you say to the seventh answer was examined before That which you say to the eighth answer will not serve to save you from differing from your self which indeed if it were in way of retractation would not be reprehensible as Saint Austin speaks in the Preface of his Retractations Neque enim nisi imprudens c. for neither will any but an unwise man reprehend me because I reprehend my errours But if you have a mind to see the difference betwixt you and you you may thus Before you said that the ground of believing is the authoritie of the Church since you have said in your second paper that it is the authoritie of God revealing If there be no difference why do you not keep your terms as a Disputant should do But you say your reply is exceeding easie the ground of our faith is God revealing and God revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word So you Now then if you make the authoritie of God revealing to be the ground and cause of faith then it is not the authoritie of the Church because although God doth reveal by his Church yet is not the authoritie of the Church the ground of faith but Gods authoritie for the Church is but as a Messenger or Ambassadour which we do not believe for himself but for his Letters of Credence from his Master and so is it the authoritie of Gods revealing which is the ground of faith And this is made out by that you say to compound your variance You say the ground of our faith is God revealing and Gods revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word then the authoritie is his whereby we believe and not the authoritie of the Church which is but Miniâ—terial And by your own argument are you undone for if the Church be the ground of faith and not the Scripture because by the Church we believe such and such books to be Canonical as you have said before and also here below in this Reply to my eight Answer then also the Authoritie of the Church is not the ground of faith because we must first believe Gods authoritie revealing it to his Church before we believe the Church But also to take notice of that Argument of yours here it is false For we must first believe the authoritie of Scripture before we can believe any authoritie of the Church For the Church as such hath all from Scripture as I have shewed And therefore by your own argument are you undone again for if that be the ground of faith which is first then the Scripture not the Church and therefore the Church may be disputed not the Scripture which we do understand by way of Intelligence through a supernatural light and cannot demonstrate as we may the Church by principles of Scripture Again you seem to differ from your self because now you hold that the Church is the ground of our faith in all particulars causally because by it we believe the Scripture but before the faith of a Catholick which you mean generally must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it so your first paper in terminis terminantibus But now when we believe the Scripture by the Church we may believe that which is plain in it by it self because it saith it not because the Church saith it Do not you now somewhat yield not to me but to truth Truth will be too hard for any one that hath not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost and yet also will it be too hard for him though he denies it Consider then what you have said and what you think and judge how the Masters of your Church will answer it at Gods Tribunal for that everlasting cheating of simple souls with the mysterie of implicite faith And that also which you so much repeat that we must receive Canonical books by the Infallible authoritie of the Church is not yet grown beyond the height of a postulate It hath been often denied you upon necessitie and it did not obtain it seems universally in the practice of the Church or else some of your Apocriphal books were not accounted Canonical for Cyrill of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechese where he speaks in part of the Scriptures he accounts not in the number the Maccabees you spoke of nor some others Yea for the reception of books Canonical Saint Jerome gives another reason of embracing but four Gospels in his Preface upon the Comment upon Saint Matthew not because the Church owned no more as you would have Saint Austin to be understood but he doth prove that there are but four by compare of that of Ezekiel with that of the Apocalypse about the foure beasts which doe represent as he interprets their meaning the four Evangelists You go on and say God revealing is alwayes the formall Object of faith Before every thing was to be believed as proposed by the Church because she proposeth it so that the formal Object of things to be believed was as proposed by the Church under that consideration But sometimes God revealeth his mind by Scripture sometimes by the Church as he did two thousand years and more before the Scriptures were written So you Well then now he reveales himself by Scripture contradistinctly to the Church as well as by the Church contradistinctly to Scripture which you put in one behalf of your unwritten word So then we may believe him immediately by Scripture but whether we can believe him immediately by tradition without Scripture wants conviction Neither doe you exhibit a reason of this Opinion by that which follows that for two thousand years and upwards before the Scriptures were written he revealed himself by the Church This as before is not enough to sustain traditional Doctrine because the Scripture in the substance of it was before it was written but you cannot evince that the word not written is as certain to us as the word before it was written was unto them And the Reason may be taken from
Scripture than for any thing else But then I deny the minor the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility is not worthy of an infallible assent It may be worthy of the highest degree of moral assurance yet not of an iâ—fal ible assent No Authority can write as to Conscience what a king writes as to civil credit teste me ipso but that which is immediatly divine And why then do the Pontificians prove the Authority of the Church by Scripture The Church without Scripture is not yet Christned if we take Scripture for the substance of the matter it will be but the highest form of Heathens And therefore the Scripture is to be believed antecedently to the Church And how little his examples have proved the minor we have seen even as much as he had cause to conclude against me out of my own words thus Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten is of equal Authority to Scripture The Traditions we stand upon be matters of Faith truly once delivered by our Saviour or his Apostles though the Revelation were not written by them therefore this is of equal Authority to Scripture even according to your own words Surely it is easier to answer this than to forbear the Person The proposition was not my words I hope categorically spoken but as being the state of the question if those Traditions be in the matter beside Scripture And now he takes this to be my affirmation simply And then we deny his minor too because that which they stand upon is not matter of Faith as being not revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles or truly delivered by either for they are uncertain by which And if they will urge that Text St. Iohn the 16.22 as Bellarmin does they may think that many things might be written afterwards or were not points of Faith And this Text hereticks have urged and therefore by my Adversaries Logique he should not And did St. Austin think that any could soberly say that the points of difference were of that number Or did any of the Saints in Heaven see what they were in speculo Trinitatis and did send down word thereof As for his defence of the exception which he took against the Scriptures being a sufficient rule to us N. 15. because neither the Apostles nor their Successours took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages as all or the greater part of them could understand my answer is yet good the care was taken in that the new Testament was written in Greek which was a common language then And this I gave an Argument of in that the Grecian is contradistinguished to the Jew in the New Testament And therefore the Greek must be the greatest and most famous part and therefore the language common this proof he is not pleased to meddle with at all Another proof that that was the common Language was that of Tully for Archias the Poet Graeca per totum orbem leguntur This he takes notice of And he saies and so is Virgil in Latin But this doth not contradict me yea he gives me a corroboration of my Argument for whom did Virgil imitate Theocritus in his Eglogues Hesiod in his Georgicks Homer in his Aeneids Yea Horace had read the Greeks it seems by his Grecisms Yea Terence was so conversant in Menander that he was called Menander dimidiatus But he saies This is to be understood thus that the most learned sort of men every where read Greek and Virgil. Ans This supposed is not exclusive to the Greeks being the common Language as to others since he will think the Latin was common to the people then and yet the most learned read Virgil. And did not all those Nations whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles to understand Greek Did he write onely to the most learned In what Language was the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Hebrews for the Roman Church confesseth that this Epistle also was written by St. Paul written were they not both written in Greek yea the Jews that used the Septuagint Translation were many So Philo the Jew and Marcus Antonius the Roman wrote in Greek And therefore that which was spoken by the Oratour was spoken without any such Hyperbole He saies yet further either this must be spoken in way of a notable amplification or Scripture must be denied because even between the two Cities of Antioch and Constantinople the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus Cappadocia Asia minor Phrygia Pamphilia all which Nations the Scripture Act. 2. testifieth to have had different Languages Ans Though the Scripture speaks of them as distinguished in speech yet not in Language but dialect and so it is expressed ver 6.8 And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be restrained as to those who had several dialects therefore whereas he saies the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus c. If he means that the common Dialect of the Greek was not used by them all this is not much to be stood upon because it is not reasonable to say that those who spake several Dialects did not understand the common Greek for take them all Attique Jonique Dorique Aeolique and Baeotique they differ ordinarily but in terminations or pronunciation from the common Within that compass is also Galatia which St. Jerom testifieth to have had a language somwhat like those of Trevers An. It is as farre from Thebes to Athens as from Athens to Thebes is it not Then that of Trevers must be as neer that of greek as that of the Galatians which was greek in St. Pauls time If afterwards the language altered or was corrupted this doth not contradict us because we must distinguish times And therefore yet it remains good that the greek was understood of the greater part of the world and therefore the Apostles took care to have the knowledge of the Gospel to be commonly understood And if they had not God did miraculously by the gift of the Holy Ghost sub forma visibili in the second of the Acts in the gift of tongues And this concludes against their Latin service as also St. Paul discourseth and concludeth against it in the first Ep. Cor. 14. And though we cannot tell the time when the Scripture can first be shewed to have been thus communicated to the people of severall languages what is this to the purpose If it had not been done afterwards it is enough to us that the Apostles did write in the most common language for those times And if it had not been done it should have been done But that it was done appears seasonably in the great Bible Neither can they tell us or will when the vulgar Latin began first to be Authentique whether under Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth In the beginning he tells me that I moved a question how the people should clearly know the true Tradition from the false Ans I did
because the Scripture can not deceive whosoever doth fear lest that he be deceived through the Obscurity of this question may ask Counsel touching it of the Church whom without any doubt the Scripture it self doth shew The same S. Aug. l. 4. de Trin. c. 6. saith No lover of peace will be against the Church And Ep. 118. c. 5. he plainly terms it Most insolent madness to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth I will insist no longer upon the Testimony of the Fathers of which I might pour a whole shower against you lest I receive the ordinary Answer that this their Opinion was one of their Navi Spots or Blemishes and therefore shall be rejected but will â—â—ge your own Authors and Protestants to whom perhaps you will give more Credit Calvin upon Esay expounding the words of the 59 Chap. My Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart from thy Mouth and from the Mouth of thy Seed and of thy Seeds Seed saith our Lord from henceforward and for ever saith He promiseth that the Church shall never be deprived of this inestimable good but that it shall alwayes be governed by the holy Ghost and supported with heavenly doctrine Again soon after The Promise is such that the Lord will so assist the Church and have such care of her that he will never suffer her to be deprived of true doctrine And his Scholar Beza de haeret à Civili Magistratu puniendis p. 69. confesseth that the Promise of our Saviour of the Assistance of the holy Ghost was not made onely to the Apostles but rather to the whole Church D. Saravia in defens tract de div Ministr gradib p. 8. saith The holy Spirit which beareth rule in the Church is the true Interpreter of Scriptures from him therefore is to be fetched the true Interpretation and since he cannot be contrary to himself who ruled the Primitive Church and governed the same by Bishops those now to reject is not certes consonant to Verity Our Lutheran Adversaries of Wittenberg Harm of Confess Sect. 10. p. 332 333. Confess Witten Art 30. not onely confess the Church to have Authority to bear witness of the holy Scripture and to interpret the same but also affirm that She hath received from her husband Christ a certain Rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by Miracles from heaven according unto the which she is bound to interpret those places of Scripture which seem to be obscure and to judge of doctrines Field also l. 4. c. 19 20. Sect. The Second acknowledgeth in the Church a Rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles according unto which he will have the Scriptures expounded And we cannot doubt but that she hath followed this Rule having such Assistance from Gods holy Spirit Furthermore the same Dr. Field in the Epistle to his Treatise of the Church professeth thus Seeing the controversies of Religion are grown in number so many and in Nature so Intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them What remaineth for Men desirous of Satisfaction in things of such Consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of Men in the World is that blessed Company of holy Ones that houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may embrace her Communion follow her directions and rest in her Judgment For brevity I will omit many other of our Adversaries who are of the same Minde and will now press harder upon you Surely if we believe the Creed the Church is holy if the Scripture She is the Spouse of our Saviour without spot or wrinkle which Eulogies and indeed glorious titles would nothing well become her if she can teach us that which is false This Scripture also gives us these known doctrines and directions That the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3. v. 15 c. That the Church is built upon a Rock and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against her Matth. 16. v. 18. He that will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican Matth. 18. v. 17. He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Luke 10. v. 16. Loe I am with you even to the Consummation of the World Matth. 28. v. 20. I will ask the father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you the Spirit of truth Jo. 14. v. 16. And again yet many things I have to say unto you but you cannot bear them now but when the Spirit of truth cometh he shall teach you all truth Jo. 16. v. 12 13. to omit many other the like passages is Scripture Now this Church whose Authority is thus warranted did praecede the Scripture which for a great part thereof was written but upon Emergent Occasions as Field Hook Covel and other our Adversaries have confessed which Occasions had they not been perhaps we never had known this Scripture Suppose then we had lived in those times when there had been no such Scripture as many did some part thereof being not written above sixty years after our Saviours Ascension Ought we not then to have believed the Churches tradition and preached word This Church was called the Pillar and Ground of Truth before the words were seen in writing and the like I might say by the other places before cited which are now in the Scripture but were delivered by word of mouth to the Church before ever they were written by all which places the Authority of the Church is commended to us and we referred to the said Church as a Guide in all our doubts And all these words of God were no less to be believed and obeyed before they were written then since Even the Scripture it self is believed upon the Tradition and Authority of the Church being part of the Credenda it proposeth nor could we at this day have known which books were true now Canonical which Spurious but by the Churches decision and Proposal as the said learned Mr. Hooker and other our Adversaries do acknowledge Again who doth not ground his belief upon the Church upon what doth he ground it but upon his own fancy or private Interpretation of Scripture the true Sourse and Nurce of all Heresy And such as these may indeed be found upon ancient Account as Helvidius Vigilantius and the rest of Hereticks as the Catholick Church did then account them Now to that which is insinuated That the Scripture was sometime acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners it is answered that it is so now but this doth no way hinder the Churches being the Ground of our Belief for the Church is both the Ground of our believing the Scripture and also the Interpreter of Scripture as is above confessed by our Adversaries
finde in my heart not to say a word to them that you might see I do not give them that respect as to the Fathers And yet take the strength of all their authorities together and make of them an accumulative argument as we may speak yet they do not conclude your cause Calvin and his Schollar in their sayings affirm no more then that which we acknowledge not from them that the Church shall by the assistance of the Spirit be sufficiently furnished with necessary Doctrine unto Salvation but those of the Church invisible may be saved though the Church visible be not Infallible and by consequence not the ground of Faith As for Doctor Saravia's passage I answer it doth not come up close to your purpose The H. G. which beareth rule in the Church objectively is the true Interpreter of Scripture and thus it is not for you And if you understand the Church objectively yet first the matter he seems to speak to is of Discipline about Government of the Church depending upon Primitive Example but we are upon points of Faith Secondly He cannot be contrary to himselfe when he acts as he did formerly in the time of the Apostles but whether he doth so act now is a question yea no question Thirdly If you will with him and from him draw the Government of the Church to be proportionably Episcopal with all my heart I reject them that reject it And your Adversaries of Wittenberg confesse nothing for you The rule they speak of namely Prophetical and Apostolical preaching c. it is the Word of God written according to which she is bound to interpret those places which are obscure and to judge of Doctrines according to the rule which she hath received so as her Interpretations are to be agreeable to the analogy of Faith and her judgements of Doctrines to be made according to the Law of the Word namely harder places are to be expounded by those which are more plain and Controversies to be decided by that rule And all this makes nothing for you For thus the Scripture is the Rule ruling and the Church is but the Rule ruled And thus we follow the Church as the Church followes the rule as Saint Paul saith Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ in the first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11. v. 1. Or if those Lutherans mean by a certain rule any rule distinguished from Scripture it is to be understood of some general heads of Christian Doctrine in proportion whereunto doubtfull places and Doctrines were to be judged But those heads were to be gathered out of Scripture And so all is resolved towards belief in Scripture but I think no man can see how they should say such a rule which was not Scripture was confirmed by miracles So for them And for Doctor Field if you will go through the twentieth chapter of the fourth Book you shall finde nothing in him contrary to this Doctrine For he saith plainly that though the Canonical Books are received by way of Tradition yet the Scriptures have not their authority from the approbation of the Church but they win credit of themselves and yeild satisfaction to all men of their Divine Truth whence we judge that the Church which receiveth them is led by the Spirit of God Observe not because the Church is led by the Spirit of God therefore doth he say she receiveth them but because she receiveth them therefore we judge she is led by the Spirit of God And as for his Rule of Faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles what is he like to mean but the Apostles Creed which he saith there was delivered in the Church as a Rule of her Faith But even this binds not by authority of the Church or upon Vertue of Tradition but by proportion to Scripture where it is found in particulars of matter though not in form of a Creed We confesse also that we should search out the true Church as the same Doctour saith We confesse that the Catholick Church is the Houshold of Faith the Spouse of Christ the Church of the Living God and that we should embrace her Communion and rest in her judgement Yes but how Not ultimately not absolutely not in what so ever she saith because shee saith it but in what so ever shee saith from the Lord. For although she doth goe by an infallible Rule yet are we not sure she goeth by it infallibly Therefore though wee rest in her judgements as to Peace yet can wee not rest in her judgements as to Truth because our understandings are not free to assent to what man will as being bound to assent to that onely which is grounded in the Word of God in matters of Faith And now might I Vie with you in number of Pontificians against you See Durand in his Prologue upon the Sentences where he hath more to our purpose then is necessary to be Transcribed Read him your self Gerson also in his Sermon concerning Errours against Faith and Manners about the Precept Thou shalt not kill saith thus More freely more purely more truely more speedily is Truth found out and Errour reproved if the Divine Law alone be constituted as Judge according to the consideration of Aristotle He which makes the Law the Judge makes God but he that addes Man addes a Beast Panormitanus also upon the 5. of the Decret concerning almes in chap. qualiter quando The saying of any Saint established with the Authorities of the New or Old Testament is preferred before a Papal Constitution even in decision of Causes Also Ferus upon the 1 Epistle of Saint John 2. chapter in the 52.3 page of the Antuerpe Edition thus The Holy Ghost doth teach t is by the means of the Holy Scripture and Word Again The Holy Scripture is given to us as a certain sure Rule of Christian Doctrine And again in the same page For if having the Holy Scripture as a most certain Rule of Christian Doctrine set before our Eyes we notwithstanding teach things so unlike what would be done if the Scriptures were taken away And if you say now that there is added to those places Tradition in the Roman Edition after the Trent Council as is noted You will get nothing by that but shame to the Pontificians And now I think I am not much behind hand with you in Testimonies about the Question But then afterwards you presse harder upon me So you say but I do not yet feel the weight of any thing you say I beleeve the Creed and that the Church is Holy And I do not beleeve but know that from hence nothing is coming to your cause The Catholick Church makes not it self the ground of Faith but is grounded in it as before And how were the first Members of the Catholick Church made Christians but by the Word of God And from the Holynesse of it doth not follow infallibility by the Roman distinction which saith that the Pope may erre
because they may erre As it was said of the Milesians they were not fools but they could doe foolish things So though they be learned men though great Divines yet may they possibly propose that which is not so They reason points by the Scripture which was wont as is noted to be laid in the middle when they were in Council but since they goe to discourse from Scripture in things doubtful and doe not see all Conclusions in principles of Scripture by way of Intelligence it is possible for them not rightly to apply some principles of Scripture to some particular cases Therefore since they have not a power not to erre we have a power to suspend our Faith nay we cannot give it without evidence of Truth Yet since they have a power to order us we have a Duty not to oppose or disturb And thus this Doctrine makes way for Faith not for Heresie since we may differ from the Opinions of the Church even defined and yet not be Hereticks because the formality of the Heretick hath it self in the will and wilful blindnesse is more apt to make Hereticks then a sober disquisition which would know what it doth beleeve For Beleef is not divided against Knowledge but Science Whereas you say afterwards in your Reply that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and Manners and the Church the ground of our beleef neverthelesse I answer I am very glad you confesse that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and Manners But this confession will destroy your Position that the Church is the ground of our beleef in your sense For if that be our Rule Ruling then our beleef is to be ruled by that For as Clemens Alexandrinus in the 7. of his Stromata saith in this matter That Principle which needs another Principle is not a Principle so that Rule which needs another Rule how is it a Rule Is it an adaequate Rule or not If so then where are your Traditions If not how a Rule of Faith and Manners Is it sufficient or not If sufficient then what necessity of your Proposal of the Church especially for things necessary which are plain If not sufficient then how a Rule of Faith and Manners And if both the Scripture and the Church be both Grounds of beleef then either coordinate or subordinate Not coordinate for then the voyce of the Church must be equal to the VVord of God without the VVord of God and who then will be guilty of the phanatical Spirit If subordinate then the principal ground makes the rest of Faith And when I know Gods Revelation in Scripture what need I goe to the Church for authority or Interpretation And besides where there is need of Interpretation although it doth belong to the Church to interpret yet cannot we ground a beleef in that interpretation unlesse it did appear that the Church doth interpret infallibly But this is not yet proved therfore your reason is not valid And if you say the Church cannot erre because it goeth by the expositions of the antient Fathers do but consider how hardly we can settle and fixe belief therein For who hath read them all yea how few know them all and who knowes whether he that doth know them and hath read them all doth give us a right account of them who can exactly distinguish betwixt those which are true and those which are false who can accurately discern of the true Fathers which pieces are true which are foisted in who can perfectly judge all their idioms of speech who can reconcile the differences betwixt one and another yea who can compose the differences betwixt themselves And that Text which you produce of Saint Peter will do you no good for we do not magnifie private interpretations We say private men should advise with the Church but are we sure that she hath hit the right sense But as for the Text it is impertinently produced if it be rightly interpreted No Prophecy of Scripture is of private Declaration and to this effect the Syriack No Prophetical solution is of private writing was not written by a private spirit for so it best agrees with that which followes in the last verse for Prophecy was not brought to us at any time by the will of Man c. And after the same manner doth Cajetan comment upon the place he toucheth the difference between Sciences written and Prophecies written in this regard that a Learned Man teacheth and writeth according to his own Interpretation those things which do appear in the light of his Agent intellect but the Prophet doth say and write those things which appear under the light of Divine Revelation not according to the interpretation of his own judgment So he So then the Text relates to those who wrote Scripture not to those who should interpret it being written And besides when private Mendo interpret Scripture for themselves they are not to interpret it by private meanes but by it self comparing place with place and discerning the sense of that which is obscure by that which is more plain And if it be a passage that is very obscure and there be no other passage more clear to illustrate it it is not like to be a point without the belief whereof there is no Salvation Well said the Greek Nilus to accuse the Scripture is all one as if one should accuse God but God is without blame It followes in your Reply and all this spoken here and in the position c. of the Church is meant of such a Church as doth truly deserve the name of Catholique Answ This I said enough to at the beginning But you seem to be very loath to own the Church of Rome and to avouch her and yet you would seem to manage the point which they make much of as they as if you had some minde to be a true Catholique abstractedly from Rome and so indeed you may be in the antient sense as they used it for those who were Orthodoxal Yet for what Church you reserve those great titles and what Church in your esteem doth deserve the name of Catholique I know not You are very close in this But let me now at least conclude that if the Catholique Church be not the ground of Faith in your sense surely the Roman is not And now all that I have to do is to justifie two expressions of mine which you are pleased to carp at The one is that I said the Pontificians do hold the proposal of the Church of Rome to be the formal object of their faith You say that you must assure the answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome in its proposal to be the formal object of their Faith as he doth impose upon them for that they acknowledge to be the Revelation of God or the authority of God revealing which causes their Belief to be supernatural or Divine c. Answ I am glad my expression gave you occasion thus to expresse
Infallible Churches Authority to be the ground of Faith I proved the Authority of the Roman Church to be so See this fully answered Numb 27.28 Secondly You say you might still have left me to answer your first Paper with the second Paper I reply that this is onely to stand to what you have said as I also do Let the Reader judge with indifferency Thirdly You say I conclude not contradictorily I reply that I alwayes conclude the Churches Authority to be a sufficient ground of Faith you say it is an insufficient ground Reader judge whether these two be not Contradictions sufficient and insufficient Now to your Eight Answers in Order In your first Answer you spent seven pages to prove the Scripture to be a sufficient ground of Faith This This it is not to conclude contradictorily You should conclude that the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of Faith which still may be and is true though it also be most true that the Scripture is a most sufficient ground of Faith when it is once known by an infallible Authority to be Gods Word and also when we evidently know that such and such is the undoubted sense of the Scripture But I have proved at large that we cannot know upon infallible Authority which books be or be not Gods Word but by the Authority of an infallible Church See Numb 11 12. And consequently if the Churches Authority be not a sufficient ground for Faith then we can have no Faith to believe which books be Gods Word which not See Numb 26. The Churches authority is hence proved to be a sufficient ground for Faith and to be our first ground for we must first upon the authority of the Church believe such and such Books to be Gods Word and then assured by this our belief that they be Gods Word we may ground our Faith upon the authority of that Word of God which in this sense I hold to be a most sufficient ground for all Faith extended to all points clearly contained in Scripture This and onely this all your Authorities prove Take for an Example your first Authority of St. Irenaeus out of which you neither do nor can infer any more then that the Scripture once believed to be Gods Word is to us a sufficient ground of Faith because in it self it is The Pillar and Foundation of Truth but by the Authority of Saint Paul which is a stronger Authority then that of Saint Irenaeus The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth Therefore her Authority is a sufficient ground of Faith even according to this your strong Argument This I shewed Numb 22. Yea Saint Irenaeus expresly teacheth that though there were no Scripture at all yet we should all be bound to believe what we now believe as I have shewed Numb the. 19. And yet then we should have no other Authority then that of the Church Again the Scriptures can then onely ground Faith when they contain the Matter about which we are bound to have Faith but very often they do not contain this Matter as I have shewed Numb 9.10.11 12. and chiefly Numb 15. and 16. These points not being contained in Scripture how can I believe them for the Scripture Lastly the Authority of Scripture onely can ground Faith in those points which are known undoubtedly to be delivered in such clear Texts as a man cannot prudently doubt of the sence but a number of things are to be believed which be not thus set down in Scripture as hath been shewed in the places cited See also Numb 14. In other Cases I never deny the Scripture to be the ground of Faith but I say that as God spoke by the pens of those who writt Scripture so he speaketh by the Tongue of his Church in a General Council and therefore these his words are also to be believed as I fully shewed Numb 21.22 23 24 25 26. The Scripture in the Cases I here specified is a sufficient ground of Faith as your authorities well prove and so is the authority of the Church as I have fully proved in the places cited In your second Answer all you say is that the Church cannot ground our Faith but I have fully shewed the contrary in the places cited In your third Answer you come to answer the Testimonies I brought out of Holy Fathers and Scriptures and this taketh you up unto your 27. Page My Reply is that in this Paper I have made good Authorities and Testimonies sufficiently abundant to convince what I undertook and I have fully refuted the chief things you said against the chief places as may appear fully out of the Numb 17 19 22 23 24 25 26. where at large I have shewed your lesse sincere proceeding about the prime authority of S. Austin whose authority in the precedent Number I shewed not to be single In the fourth Answer you say you take not Canonical Books to be Canonical for the authority of the Church I Reply that if you do not take them to be so on this authority yet the holy Fathers did as I have shewed Numb 12.25 26. And if you believe them to be Canonical onely upon the Light given in them to you to see this verity your ground is far more fallible then the authority of a General Council as I have demonstrated Numb 13. In the fifth Answer you endevour to shew that you ground not your Faith on your own private judgement of discretion but I have shewed fully the contrary Nu. 3 4 7. In the sixt Answer you rejoyce to see me confesse the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and Manners as if I had at any time denyed this Neither doth this Confession destroy my Position that the Church is the Ground of our Belief Can I not ground my Faith upon what St. Peter saith because I can ground it upon that which Saint Paul saith Why is the Scripture the Rule of Faith Because it delivereth to me Gods Written Word But the Church delivereth to me Gods Word written and unwritten I may therefore also rule my self by that The most right Rule of Scripture is often so crookedly applyed that he is blind who seeth not that we need to have better security of Interpretation then our own private discretion of Judgement can afford as I have fully proved Num. 4.14 Of the Infallibility of the Church in Interpreting I have fully proved our Doctrine Numb 21 22 23 24 25 26. In the seventh Answer you taxe me with being loath to own the Roman Church Why I did not speak of the Roman Church I told you here in the beginning it was because you would conclude as there you do The Catholique Church is not the Ground of Faith therefore the Roman is not I have fully shewed the contrary and proved the Catholique Church to be the ground of our Faith and out of superabundance I have shewed this Church to be the Roman Church See Numb 27 28. In the eighth Answer
to shew that all points necessarie be clearly determined according to truth in Scripture you are put upon a necessitie to say that lesse clear Texts suffice to determine this controversie for you though you stifly maintain that more clear Texts are not able to determine against you By which it is apparent how false that Principle is which forceth you to utter these inconsequent consequences By this also you may see that the Contradiction you would find in my words for saying on the one side these Texts are clear and on the other side that this Controversie the Scripture doth not decide doth arise out of my speaking according to your principles For you on the one side say that other Texts which are manifestly lesse clear are clear enough to end the controversies therefore these which are clearer must needs be clear enough for that end And again you say on the other side by these our Texts clearer then yours this Controversie is not clearlie decided Therefore I must consequentlie say that according to you This Controversie the Scripture doth not decide It is according to your Principles that these Texts must be clear because they be clearer then those which you are forced to affirme clear and again you must say they be not clear for fear you should confess them to decide against you Now if these two places be denied to be clear with a clarity sufficient to put an end to the Controversie then according to my principles scarce any Controversie will ever be decided by any Text. And this is most for my turn to shew the necessity of a living Judge whereas afterwards you take occasion to dispute of this Sacrament you do not do it as it should here have been done to the present purpose to wit by alledging more clear Texts to prove that Christs true body is not really in the Sacrament then I alledge to prove that it was really in it For these Texts I do call These Texts I require Without you give me these more clear Texts you will never give me a satisfactorie answer All other things I wave of until I have these clearer Texts The difference of these two hundred interpretations about these four words This is my Body though they be not owned by you yet they make strongly against you in this respect that they shew the Text of Scripture not to have ended but to have occasioned these endlesse differences And consequently they shew this point not to be clear out of Scripture You in vain are busie about other things which are not to the purpose so to entertain your Reader that he may not mark your omitting the main point which was to shew this great Controversie to be clearly decided on your side by Scripture onely Of my 15th Number 60. I go on still pressing other points the belief of which points your self hold necessarie to salvation and yet you cannot shew them evidently taught in Scripture For you cannot produce an evident Text teaching that God the Father is not begotten God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father onely that the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but proceedeth and that both from the Father and the Son And that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father Your answer to this is most highly unsatisfactorie You say that although the matter of these points be not found in terminis in Scripture yet the sense of them according to equivalence may as well as Transubstantiation To be as clearly set down as Transubstantiation in Scripture is according to your own principles not to be clearly set down at all In your answer you were to shew that these points were clearly set down in Scripture and you answer that they are as clearly set down as a point which is not clearly set down Is this any way satisfactorie Neither is it more satisfactorie if you mean to argue out of our own principles for according to us all points necessarie and this point in particular are not clearly set down in Scripture And to prove this I have laboured all this Chapter So that you neither satisfie according to your own nor our Principles Your second answer is destroyed by your former for whilest in that you professe to hold these Articles and not hold them upon the authoritie of the Church you leave your self no other authoritie upon which you can hold them but onely such Texts of Scripture as are not clear and no more sufficient to ground faith then other places are to ground a belief of Transubstantiation Be such places sufficient 61. For another necessarie point not plainly set down in Scripture I urge Baptisme of children Of my 16th Number which is by no evident Text of Scripture taught us You answer that it is not necessary for the salvation of the children to be baptized And to prove this pernicious doctrine you bring a Text which clearly speaketh onely of men old enough to believe and desire Baptisme For your Text is He that believeth he is then old enough to believe and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not and consequently would positively not be baptized shall be damned This Text you see speaketh nothing of children and whilest it damneth those who would not so much as believe it sheweth it self to speak of those who would not be baptised and these it damneth How doth it then intimate that those who are children and could have onely baptisme in re and not in voto should be saved without Baptisme for which point you bring it and yet of this point it speaketh not at all much lesse doth it speak as clearly as another text speaketh the quite contrary to wit Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven Jo. 3. v. 5. Hear your own Doctor Tayler in his defence of Episcopacy Sect. 19. P. 100. Baptisme of Infants is of ordinary necessitie to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this Rite Rule upon the Tradition of the Apostles And wise men of whom I hope you are one do easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessitie of communicating Infants upon us as we doe of baptizing Infants upon them Therefore a great Master of Geneva in a Book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flie to Apostolical traditional Ordination They that deny this Ordinarie necessitie of baptizing Infants are by the just Anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Heretickes so he This ordinary necessitie of Baptisme to all that ever cried You denie Therefore by the just Anathema of the Catholick Church you are condemned for an Heretick yea you go further then the Pelagian Heresie for they were counted Hereticks See Saint Aust Heresi 88. for saying Although Infants be not baptized they shall possesse an eternal and blessed life though it be out of the Kingdome of God You will admit them
private Priests are far more likely to teach them Gods law by teaching them what the Universal Church holds to be Gods Law then by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be Gods Law as you would have them do 11 Now to prove further the Church to be a competent judge guiding us no lesse securely then those many millions were guided who had an infallible faith and the same Spirit of faith with us as S. Paul said though their faith were grounded on the authority of no Scripture but wholy and intirely on the tradition of their infallible Church I urged that in those two thousand years and more before Moses did write the very first book of Scripture the true faith of all the true believers of those Ages depended in its infallibility upon their Churches being infallible in proposing the traditions she had received shall we allow infallibility to that Church and deny it to Christs Church shall we be worse provided for in so main a point in the law of grace then they were in the law of Nature what text of Scripture is there for this Then it was not written Hear the Church then it was not written that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her Nor that she was the Pillar and ground of truth that the spirit of truth abided with her then teaching her then all truth All this and far more then this as I shall shew in this chapter is written now of Christs Church And yet you will say we are not sufficiently certified of her infalliblity I pray tell me how then were they certified and infallibly certified of the infallibility of their Church How did Men then infallibly know that they were bound under pain of damnation to believe the tradition of that Church shew me then what you demanded of me lastly to shew that is shew the ground they had then to hold their Church infallible and the infallibility of the knowledge of it and infallibly what was the subject of this infallibility If you cannot shew that they could not then do it better then we now then refuse not to stand up to our Creed Your answer to so convincing an argument is most unsatisfactory and it would make a man think your intent were to plead against your self You say this was answered before it was written what was that answer It was that the word in substance of it was before the Church which was begotten by it to this you add that when there is now as much need and as great certainty of tradition as formerly then I may urge this argument so when you speak of the word of God which you say was before all writing and which begot the Church you must speak of the unwritten word This unwritten word is that very thing which we call tradition and indeed when you speak of such a word as must be sufficient for an exterior and an infallible direction for so many millions as were by it onely to be directed in the way of Salvation before any Scripture was written you must of necessity put this word outwardly expressed somewhere and expressed in such a manner as may be able to produce this effect of guiding whole millions in the way of Salvation by an infallible beliefe of what God hath said by that word Now I pray find me out any word of God any where existent before Scripture but in the Orall Tradition of the Church of those times You say Gods word revealed is the ground of all faith They then had faith therefore they then had Gods word revealed and revealed in a sufficient manner to ground divine faith But they only had Gods word revealed by Tradition Therefore Gods word revealed by tradition is a sufficient ground to ground divine faith By this unwritten word that is by this Tradition of the Church she from a small Church consisting of those very few to whom God by his own mouth did first of all speak or by his Angels grew to be a multitude of true believers And so the Church was begotten by Tradition upon which only this multitude that is the Church did judge most prudently that to be the true word of God which was by so powerfull a motive perswaded to be so That hence you may see that this very motive alone is a very sufficient inducement to receive the Verities recommended by it and to receive them with an infallible assent For this was the only inducement which we know the true believers to have had for those 2000. years and more which were before Moses did write the first book of Scripture And those Scriptures which were written from the law of Moses to the time of Christ were only kept among the Iewes and this time lasted two thousand yeares more during which long time many among the Gentiles as apeareth by Job and his friends had true divine faith with out any knowledg of the Scripture wholy unknown unto them this faith of theirs could have no other ground but Gods unwritten Word delivered to them by Tradition Therefore Gods unwritten Word delivered by Tradition only is a sufficient ground for infallible faith 12 And whereas you add That when there is as much need and as great certainty of Traditions as formerly then I may urge this argument I answer that the need or necessity of Traditions which you conceive to have been greater then now doth not make the Traditions more credible Those who have read very much in very many credible books of France have no need at all of any unwritten and orall tradition to make them believe there is such a countrey as France yet these men whom we will suppose to live at Dover doe as certainly know by unwritten or Orall Tradition of men daily coming from France bringing French passengers French commodities and as to those who never read one word concerning France not being able to read at all And those who are not able to read at all are not lesse assured by unwritten tradition that there is such a Kingdome as France because there be many books written of France and the French warrs with the English So though we have now the Scriptures written concerning most points of faith we are not lesse helped by tradition because there be such books extant And good Sir consider how great our necessities are of both these helps for even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions we have ever had with them a perpetuall succession of horrible divisions opening still wider and wider All commonly caused by the misinterpretation of the Scripture to which inconvenience they were not subject before all Scripture was written And therefore in this respect there is now after the writing of the Scripture a greater necessity then ever of Tradition both to assure us which books be the word of God which not which be the true which the false Copies of these books Where they be secure where corrupted And lastly which is the true sense of
them and which not For the sense even in necessary matters as I have shewed in the last Chapter is far from being evident Again Tradition doth of its own selfe naturally continue in its full force and vigour after the same things are wrirten as well as it did before as appears by what I just now said of the unwritten traditions by which many men only know France or Spain yea rather the increasing of it by being divulged in writing by most credible and manifold Authors doth very much strengthen this former tradition so far is it from taking any thing from it wherefore God must purposely by a miracle have infringed the course of Nature which no man can say he did if the former Traditions of the Church which before the writing of any Scripture did fully suffice alone to ground an infallible faith of such and such points should grow then to lose their sufficiency in order to the same effect when they were strengthned by so great an authority as that of the Sacred Writers was Hence is confuted the opinion of Protestants teaching the Authority of Traditions to have expired when the whole Canon of the Scripture was finished though not before For which they have no Scripture at all And if they go by reason they are to say Tradition was rather more strengthned yea if they will not say this yet consequently they should say that Tradition revived againe at least in part when some part of the Canon was lost yet you ought not to say that Tradition expired at the finishing of the Canon without it can be shewed that God did expresse this unto the Church so to undeceive those many thousands who had then reason to think that they might securely build their beliefe upon that upon which for about foure thousand yeares so many had untill that day built their faith When Saint Paul or any other Canonical writer preached first that doctrine which afterward he did write did the beliefe of those thousands which was at first sufficiently grounded upon his preaching come to lose its certainty or rather to gain a new degree of certainty when Saint Paul came afterward to write that they must hold the Traditions he had delivered to them 2 Thess 2. 1 Gal. 2. and that though an Angel should come and teach them contrary to what they had received by his Orall Tradition they should account him Anathema And again Have thou a form of sound words which thou hast heard of me 1. Tim. chap. 1. And again chap. 2. the things which thou hast heard he saith not read of me by many witnesses these commend to faithfull men which shall be fit to teach others also Would the writing of such Scriptures make them think any force taken from Traditions or rather make them conceive that Traditions are to be stood upon now more then ever before Again what wise man would put out one light costing him nothing because it will be shining of its own nature unlesse you will needs have it hidden because he hath now another light but so that even with both these lights many of his house-hold will still remain in darkness But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us I would know of you upon what account the Tradition of so Noble a Church as Christs Church is should be of lesse credit or certainty then the Tradition of that farre lesse Noble Church which was in the Law of Nature What meanes had they then given by God to secure their Tradition for the space of 4000. years which we want for the having secured our Traditions for these last 1654. yeares This meanes you can by no means assigne and therefore by all means you must grant the Traditions of this Nobler Church to have been as securely preserved from Corruption for these fewer yeares as those Traditions of a farre lesse Noble Church were preserved without corruption for above 4000 yeares Again the Tradition of Christs primitive Church before the Scriptures were written and sufficiently promulged which Tradition did by an infallible authority recommend all things was to be believed upon her sole authority and so was the Tradition of the first Church before there was any Scripture and therefore by good consequence she in the first place recōmended herauthority to be believed as divine and infallible and all the true believers believed it to be so which they could not have done without God had said so for all divine beliefe resteth upon the saying of God God therefore said by that his Church that her Traditions were infallible for her authority Now if God said this shall we upon your fallible discourse come to say the Church's Traditions are now no longer infallible though God said they were so and never yet expressed the ceasing of their infallibility By this you will see whether my Answer hath helped you or your reply helped me concerning what will follow out of St. Irenaeus 13. For this serves for making good what I said out of St. Irenaeus so farre as he is a witness which a profane author might have been of what hapned so near his times For as for his authority as he is a most grave Father of the Church and a most believing that to be true which he commended to writing as most true I doe not presse it against you Yet because here you thank St. Irenaeus for his testimony and make a shew as if it were for you though you cannot invent the means by which Tradition should have ben conveighed more certainly supposing there had been no Scripture I could not but observe how so soon as you have hugged him you cast him off again with small respect when you say Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely only upon Tradition They might be commended to the doctrine of the Gospel by Tradition and then not believe it for the sake of Tradition How flatly be these your words against St. Irenaeus who clearly declareth all himselfe to tell us upon what ground we must have been obliged to believe though the Apostles had never written any Scriptures at all What saith he if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures must we not have followed that order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose Charges they left the Church to be governed To this order of tradition by the unwritten word many barbarous Nations do assent who have believed in Christ without any writings keeping diligently the ancient Traditions What bringeth he this example of these Barbarous Nations for but to shew that we might with divine faith believe upon the sole account of that very tradition which the Apostles de facto left to those to whom they left the Churches goverment although the Apostles had never written at all at any time He therefore was none of those who would say with you neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations
Thirdly it is a great question upon the supposition who succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome and Carranza cannot determine it Fourthly St. Peter was appointed rather for the Jews than for the Gentiles and therefore the Trent Council in their comminations do very well to put St. Paul with St. Peter for indeed St Paul was the Doctor of the Gentiles Yea fifthly for six hundred years together there was no Pastors at Rome in their sense not Pastor of the universall Church as appears by Gregory's protestation against John of Constantinople who would arrogate and usurp universall jurisdiction And therefore there was not alwyes in the Church in my Adversaries sense a lawfull succession of Pastors because there was not Pastors in his sense and so by his argument there should not have been a Catholick Church for that time Yea Sixthly and lastly how can we be ascertained by certitude of faith that there was ever a lawfull succession of Bishops in Rome because we are not certain in that kind of certainty to be sure nor indeed in any other that the Popes were true Bishops or true Priests or true Christians because their principles bring it into question by the uncertainty of the qualifications of those who were to make them Christians by Baptism or Priests by orders or Bishops by consecration And also secondly because some as it is known by History have got into the sea by Simonie which makes it disputable even amongst themselves whether it did not ex vi Criminis make them no Bishops And the thirtieth Canon of the Apostles which they acknowledge as binding too injoins that such as get their dignity by money should be put out Yea thirdly when there were Antipapes how could the Common people by assurance of faith know which was the right For though they say that he is to be accounted the right whom the Council doth accept yet is it a question whether they can infallibly judge in the case otherwise no certainty of faith And then there is not always a Council and how can the Council be called without a true Pope If they may then is not the Pope essentiall to the infallibility of the Church This is answer enough to what he says about his lawfull succession of true Pastors that which appends hereunto is collaterally answered here more particularly before He goes on It is necessary to the salvation of every man to believe and do some things and not to do some other things not plainly set down in Scripture Ans Not so necessary as it is not to beg the question so often This proposition doth indeed plainly contradict our proposition but doth not prove it to be false unlesse it by it self did evidently appear to be true Therefore it is enough for me to deny it being the Respondent But we see by the way that those who make the Church its infallibility their first principle are apt to make all it says to be as clear as the first principles of Sciences He that believes and does according to Scripture is surer of salvation than all the Church can make him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ignatius's phrase is He that goes by the rule is safe he that goes by Scripture in faith and obedience goes by the rule Therefore Now God hath proposed the Scripture as our rule by Bellarmin's confession in the beginning of his Controversies as before And if it be not a compleat rule then indeed is it not a rule for it comes short of a rule and this will not serve Bellarmin's use because then they whom he disputes against might have urged their revelations beside the rule though not against it as the Pontificians are pleased to distinguish And as for point of faith we have besides what testimonies out of the Fathers for this I have given before the plain authority of St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his 4 Cat. p. 85. Edit Gr. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning things Divine and the holy Mysteries of faith there ought not to be delivered any thing without the Divine Scriptures And therefore in another place he understands by traditions the sum of those things that were taken out of Scripture as in the 5. Cat. p. 117. And so Tertullian in his Praes cap. 13. His Regula fidei is a sum of main points of Doctrine taken out of Scripture And concerning this rule he sayes Adversus Regulam nihil scire omnia scire est And so Irenaeus also means tradition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in severall places Indeed Tertullian and Irenaeus and Cyprian and Basill and Austin are quoted by the Pontificians in the Trent Council for holding that the Christian faith is contained partly in the Scriptures and partly in traditions But for these Fathers if their consent did ground infallible assent are either mis-understood or else are contradictory to themselves and therefore we cannot rely upon them because one part of the contradiction must be false As for St. Austin I have formerly quoted him for holding that all things necessary to faith and manners are amongst those things which are plainly contained in Scripture And St. Basill I have produced too And as for Cyprian we will quote him for the other part namely of action though we might also name him for Scripture to be the rule in things of faith for he makes his proofs from Scripture In his second B. of Epistles third Epistle he hath these words Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Neque enim hominis Consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Wherein he opposeth the truth of God to whatsoever custom And the truth of God he understands to be of the word written for there he proves all about the Cup in the Sacrament to be mingled with Wine and Water out of Scripture which proves however he took Scripture to be our rule in Agents Yea also this point was agitated by Marinarus in the Trent Council where he delivered his opinion P. 151. z. that the Fathers did not make Tradition to be equall to Scripture and therefore was he reprehended in the Council by Cardinall Poole for not allowing that Articles of faith are divided into two kinds some published by writing others commanded to be communicated by voice And can any sober man imagin that God should by his spirit give order for the writing of the Mystery of the Gospell and yet should also give order by his Spirit that somewhat should not be written but kept in Mystery for orall tradition and yet should be as much necessary as that which is written credat Judaeus Every one is to believe some things distinctly Now which these things be or how many Scriptures expresse not Ans Let this be taken for an antecedent will it be concluced from hence that therefore all things necessary are not plainly set
those texts defended doth sufficiently confirm the Scriptures sufficiency in matter and manner to this end of salvation We do not say that all things necessary to decide all Controversies are plainly set down in it that is not our assertion nor the state of the question betwixt us Our position may be true and yet this false for all things necessary to salvation may be plainly set down in Scripture and yet not all things necessary to decide all Controversies Neither can they maintain this of their Church which they think more fit to decide Controversies than Scripture for then why did not the Trent Council clearly determine on which part many questions should be held But the plainnesse of things necessary is in Scripture sufficient against the necessity of any Controversie as the fulnesse is sufficient against the necessity of Tradition which is their word unwritten And therefore are not we bound by any necessity of our cause to find any Text wherein we are obliged to take the Scripture for our onely Judge of Controversies for the texts before maintained are good to prove us obliged to Scripture for salvation whereunto things necessary are plainely set down If he might have made the state of the question for his own turn my discourse should have been impertinent A ruffling Adversary would have said that he had shifted and shuffled in the change of the question as if we had held that the Scripture did contain all things necessary to decide all Controversies All prime Controversies necessary to salvation if there need be any it doth and that is sufficient for us against them But he thought he had devised a way how this opinion might be made good that the Scripture doth suffice for the deciding of all Controversies thus Yet the Scripture wanteth not that glory of being sufficient to decide all imaginable Controversies because she teacheth us that Christ hath erected a Church built upon a rock the pillar and ground of truth having the Spirit of truth abiding with her to teach her all truth O excellent provision for the honor of Scripture One in the Trent Council as I remember did not like references but would have all done uniformely by the same hand but we must from Scripture referr to the Church And as it is said of Cardinall Bellarmin that being asked a question too difficult said he could not tell how to answer it but he would shew the party one that could and then shewed him the picture of an excellent Divine so the Scripture cannot answer all Controversies but it hath reputation in this that it can shew and doth an infallible Judge of all imaginable Controversies the Church To this first methinks then if it were but for this use the Scripture should be more common to the Laitie because it sheweth so clearly this Judge Secondly let them shew unto us where the Scriptture doth plainly shew unto us this Judge that they may no longer beg the question And Thirdly let them tell us why the Church doth not determin all Controversies as we have said before not imaginable onely but reall Controversies as concerning the Popes power in compare with a Council and concerning his temporall power and concerning the right of Bishops concerning original sin concerning the conception of the Virgin were these determined with satisfaction to all the Members of the Council Fourthly doth the Scripture give the denomination of this Church which is the pillar and ground of all truth that should be the infallible Judge Fifthly if they think the Spirit of truth doth abide with the Church to decide all Controversies by way of an habituall gift then must this Church have more priviledge than the Apostles had for they had the Spirit by way of a transient gift and therefore some particular questions they did not decide by the gift of the Spirit but the Church must have a standing faculty to decide all imaginable Controversies Sixthly may not we as well say this is for the glory of the Church for necessaries to salvation that it sends us to the Scripture which is infallible and clear enough in things of necessary faith This honour the Fathers before the universal Bishop gave to the Scriptures the Romanists now would arrogate it to the Church If they must be brought to a Competition which in ingenuity should carry the honour the Scripture according to the Fathers or the Church according to the Romanists But he thinks according to his principles he is not engaged to finde a plaine Text where this is set down that the Church should decide with infallible authoritie all our Controversies because according to them all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down Answ Then first according to our principles we are not bound to believe it and we must account it no necessary to salvation because it is not plainly set down And how then shall we know it what by its own light or may we know the Church by Scripture and not the infallibility which is the priviledge Secondly How then could he say by Scripture that God hath provided a way so direct that fooles cannot err Thirdly if he confesse that there is not a clear text which sheweth this priviledge of and our duty to the Church then the disputation is at an end for he will not dispute with me from the testimony of the Fathers for causes best known to himself And if he sayes we must be judged by the Church it is the question Fourthly therefore are we in this agreed which is the main point of the question namely that the Scripture doth not plainly set it down that the Church is to decide with infallible authority all our Controversies For if it were plainly set down we also should be bound to believe it as being plainly set downe though it would not therefore be necessary to salvation simply because it is plainly delivered All necessaries are plainly set down according to our opinion but all that is plainly set down is not necessary to salvation ex natura principii And then fifthly if he doubts of this point as to be plainly set down in Scripture then his principles are less capable of certainty than ours for he hath no ground certain of his faith upon the account of the Church because if the Church did ground her infallibility upon her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture she could not by her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture prove that she is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet neither hath the Church or their Church for ought I have read in any of their Councils determined it selfe by Scripture or otherwise infallible to the decision of all imaginable Controversies Nay neither do Bellarmin or Stapleton if I be not mistaken assert the infallibility of the Church in this extent therefore my Adversary in this walks alone Yet he says the texts he will produce hereafter are an hundred times more clear that the Church is to decide all our Controversies than
is under a command and express precept St. Matth. 22.37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind And this cannot be moulded into the notion of a counsel for thus Christ answers to the question in the ver before what is the great Commandement of the Law And also in the ver after he saies this is the first and great Commandement Now to do thus is most perfect charity and therefore what we can do is comprehended under all that is commanded yea if the law requires more then we can do according to ordinary measure of grace then we cannot do more than the law requires now this the law requires and not only semper but ad semper as to the internal duty of love And who is there in all the world that loves the Lord alwaies with all his heart with all his soul with all his mind And therfore Gods law is not to be cut short that it may be made even with our ability present Neither doth the text named by him out of St. Iohn prove obedience to the law possible to us in the way we may keep Gods commandements in generale though not all as we ought as we are said to keep the way though sometimes we transgresse We may keep the commandements as a man keeps a Castle against the enemies he keeps it till he be beat out of it he keeps it against forsaking it but he doth not keep it so as not to be overcome he keeps them as to the purpose of his mind he doth not keep them absolutly as to all acts negative in commands negative and positive acts in affirmative commands He keeps them not as keeping contradicts all offending for in many things we offend all as St. Iames speaks And therefore can we not fulfil the law because the same Apostle saies 2 ch 10. He that keeps the whole law and offend in one shall be guilty of all And therefore this argument is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for we can say that we may keep the commandements yet not fulfil them according to the power we had in Adam and according to the measure of the obligation which is not adequated to our strength now but to Gods law as an express of his holiness and as commensurable to mans ability in state of Original righteousness Nay it is observable also that the word in St. Iames which is rendered shall offend is as diminutive a word in the kind as I think any other for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest Hindan and the rest of that sort should think that venial sinnes do but cast a little dust upon a Christians life no defilement And therefore to conclude upon the whole matter if the Scripture needs an infallible interpreter to distinguish betwixt counsels and precepts both given in the mood of command this makes no difficulty until counsels find better proof If they will take our counsel let them keep their counsel to themselves This we may say as litle to as he saies in it of new discourse N. 56. He speaks here again of the losse of Divine books This we have spoken to before more then once upon his provocation And this pincheth them for why may not they then faile of some traditions and how then can we depend upon the Church when the Church should have kept them since the Church as the learned of them say is to depend upon them But own thing here he would urge that according to us we must pick out points necessary one out of one Book another out of another Ans Surely this is no strong plea for first ought not the word of God dwel plentifully in us as the Apostle speaks 2. Cannot any own easily discern historical books from doctrinal 3. Can they not take special notice of those heads of doctrine or practice unto which salvation is expressely annexed 4. This argument concludes more heavily against them for depending upon the Church Who can compare all their books from age to age for their doctrin who can compare who hath been most learned and most faithful to derive a successional summe of things to be believed and to be done nay who in the compare of Churches can preferre the best but by the best doctrin and yet according to them we must take the doctrine from the Churches who can measure the vast latitude of the universal Church by those rules of Vincentius is it not easier to receive necessaries from Scripture then to boult them out of so many volumes of ages And how should we be sure of keeping received traditions when some traditions which were received are not yet kept by the Roman Church 5. In Scripture though we pick for necessaries yet we have nothing false but we have false traditions have we not yea this is a false tradition that traditions are equal to Scripture Yea 6. If any books be lost they were lost before Christs time and yet those which remained in St. Pauls time were able to make Timothie wise unto salvation And towards the reading of the Apocryphal books that so we may reade over the whole Canon it is a supposition in stead of proofe The reading of them in the Church doth not inferre their canonicalness of proper name and this is made good to them they know lately by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Cosins in a book on purpose And as for accurate noting all places and conferring with other places What then multa non experimur quia difficilia multa difficilia quia non experimur Is not this possible is not Salvation worth the paines must every one amongst them know the distinct exact sense of all their definitions no they will say but the people should seek the law at the Priests mouths Well then so is it not necessary to Salvation that the people with us should be able exactly to conferre all places and as for those places which contain necessaries there is not such obscurity And yet surely some hardness according to their principles doth belong to faith for how otherwise should it be supernatural and meritorious therefore if their way of beliefe be so easie it doth not beare proportion to the qualities of faith assigned by Mr. Knott And as for Translations to agree with the Originals this we have canvased before And our people can do it as well as theirs better too because they have liberty of translations And to the truth of originals we must come in several causes as Bellarmin before Omne reducitur ad principiun is good here too And then the consectary of these difficulties he would make to be negative to us namely that God did not intend this book to be our only guide And he would perswade us thus Gods wisedome directs him to the best meanes to compass his intention And then he would frame a minor with advantage thus even our ordinary wisedome if we had an
the Word or by the Sword And therefore consideratis considerandis if he hath no other hold for his Hypothesis he hath none And so Lycurgus the Lawmaker might well die in Crete for his fiction that the laws he gave the people came from Apollo of Delphos As to the charge against their Church about the Millenary opinion he would here answer it N. 3. that it was not admitted by the supreme pastour of the Church defining with the Church assembled in a Council Ans first If this were a reason it would destroy all the traditions for three hundred years because they were not admitted by the supreme Pastour defining with the Church in a general Council for they say there was no council for the first 300 years But secondly was not tradition then an infallible rule if it was that is no answer if not the Scripture or there was no infallible rule at all and this contradicts them in both for they say there was an infallible rule and not Scripture But he would also say it was not generally admitted by the Church diffused or universal Ans But I hope the diffused Church adds no authority to a matter of faith This was indeed Alphonsus a Castro's opinion but my adversary was not of capacity for that conceit because he annexeth authority to the Pope and a Council and if the diffused Church which includes the people have any moment toward credibility why is it denied to them to have the Judgment of private discretion since their consent also makes a suffrage And as for the diverse Fathers not holding it as a Tradition they may excuse us certainly unless they will prove it He should not surely prove it by Iustin for he is accounted for it himself though many did not acknowledg it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sufficient for a Tradition Is it not If not let them shew more for other Traditions which they hold if so then that went for one And then the many were not Fathers St. Austin otherwise Neither doth this conclude against Catholick Tradition in all use but may in point of faith till we be as certain of Tradition Till that time I am satisfied with the former place of Cyrill of Ierusalem and when we shall be as certain of Tradition derived from the Apostles times through all ages of the Church in points of Faith then we shall not urge this plea that if this opinion of an Apostolical Tradition was so current in the Church upon the credit of one Papias at first how shall we be ever sure in the account of Traditions which is which N. 4. He hath learned to speak here high that he might at least at last go off with noyse He calls it a demonstration which yet by his own words is to be held up by a supposition Neither upon the supposition supposed will it be very neare a demonstration for it concludes not per se but by accident and also it concludes rather or primarily negatively that other Churches are not the infallible Judge And if the discourse were good it would come to this that other Churches should fare the worst for their modesty and the Roman should fare the better for their impudency And if the antient Church was infallible notwithstanding it did not say that it was infallible or else they differ from the antient Church in an essentiall praedicate then their Church is noâ— infallible notwithstanding it saies that it is infallible So then upon the whole matter his supposition is not admitted and therefore could they well prove their Church to be fairer for this priviledge then any other the supposition being admitted yet since it is not admitted it proves nothing in re nor by their own confession And yet if it were admitted his discourse would not make him to be as good as his word in a demonstration And yet this ratiocination of his instead of an un-answerable argument against us but is proved not to be so may be an unanswerable argument against them that they lie at catch and have need of that which all other Churches have left and also it proves that they have no better proof What I said more to what he said more by anticipation he saies nothing to But he ingageth himself in the end to a better account of the Roman Church So then I have for the present my discharge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet his Epiphonema is this Petrae durities nulli magis quam ferienti nota And not to be behind hand with him I return him that of St. Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS Errata which the judicious and can did Reader is desired to observe PAge 71 l. 9. r. uncreated p. 84. l. 6. r. Pelagians p. 115. l. 7. r. derogates p. 116. l. 2. r. substrated p. 121. l. 15. p. 12â— l. 7. r. these p. 148. l. 15. r. destruction p. 236. l. 14. r. aequivalent p. 238. l. 20. r. properly p. 248. l. 31. r. heard p. 516. l. 5. r. read p. 518. l. 4 5. r. dissent this errour is to be mended as likewise there for these or their as oft as it occurs p. 52â— l. 5. r. recidivation p. 527. l. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 528. l. 28. r. less p. 5â—9 l. 5. r. pauperius p. 534. l. 11. r. Catholica p. 535. l. 14. r. Lesbian rule p. 588. l. 4. 1. Homoufiasts p. 5â—0 l. 23. r. Sophisme p. 544. l. 25. dele A. p. 550. l. 3â— r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 593. l. 23. r. quaeritur p. 594. l. 13. r. sworn p. 609. l. 28. r. dolus p. 629. l. 35. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 662. l. 25. r. quâ ibid. l. 28. unusquisque p. 680. l. 15. r. Agends p. 695. in the margin r. Dr. Potter p. 726. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 730. l. 5. r. decretory weapons p. 742. l. 15. r. now p. 744. l. 26. r. a posse non ad non posse non valet p. 200. which should be p. 930. l. 28 9. r. Cardinal's p. 946. l. 3. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 13 r. Prudentia p. 953. l. 4. r. qui ne le croit p. 964. l. 10. r. by images p. 975. l. 2. r. Greek Latin Edition p. 977. l. 19. r. without indempnity p 980. l. 7. r. Antoninus p. 985. l. 16. r. Encratites p. 994. l. 23. r. joyn with her the Church p. 1000 l. 21 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1060. l. 19. r. one p. 1066. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The mistakes of the Printer in false pointing litterals and folio's may be rectified in reading
and not private Spirit which I can esteem no better then a fantastical if not a fanatical Opinion and is Diametrically opposite to the words of the second of St. Peter 1.20 No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation And all this spoken here and in the Position c. of the Church is meant of such a Church as does truely deserve the name of Catholick and so it will appear that all the discourse in this paper I received of the Roman Church considered as a Particular Church or any other Particular Church is but Impertinent and Extravagant Now also I must assure the Answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome the formal Object of their Faith as he doth impose upon them for they acknowledge that to be the Revelation of God or the authority of God revealing which causes their Belief to the Supernatural and Divine and not onely Natural and Humane as is the Belief that there is such a City as Rome or that there is a William the Conquerour c. which kind of faith is All that Hereticks have and All such as do not ground their Belief upon the Authority of the Church I cannot also but observe in the received paper that it is improperly enough called Excess of faith as it is there opposed to want of faith to believe more then Necessary for the Number of things believed does not alter the Nature of faith it self And lastly I must tax him of false alledging the words in the Reason thus there is no infallible way without a Miracle of his Gods Revelation coming to us but by their Church whereas in the Paper delivered it is the Church abstracting from all Particular Churches and meaning the true Church which soever it is And this is done but to make way for that needless Excursion which there follows THE REJOYNDER SIR THere is no great reason for me to rejoyn First because you wave the Application of your Discourse as to the Roman Church which is not ordinary for those of your Profession when they speak highly of the Catholique Church Secondly Because I may let you alone to answer the first paper with your second as to the main of it Thirdly Because the greatest part of it hath one fault not to conclude contradictorily Yet in Christian respects to Truth and You I shall endeavour meekly some return to your Reply and to differ as little as may be from you I shall mostly follow your own Order In the beginning you dislike my dislike of the ground of Faith without giving you any Reason Answer I intended my answer as near as I could guesse to the design of your paper for the Roman Church by Obedience to the Bishop whereof Bellarmine in his Catechism Englished p. 65. 6 7. doth describe the Catholique Church You will excuse me then if I took the course to make my answer compendiously sufficient to that drift if you will hold with Papists herein And if you would confesse you meant the Roman Church by the Catholique then I have given you such a Reason against your Position as you will say nothing to And you may consider that you directed your paper as to a Protestant who is not contradistinguished to a Catholique but to a Papist if you be a Papist why doe you dissemble it to me If you be not why do we dispute And this Apology may be enough also to refute all your Objections against me of impertinencies and excursions and untrue Allegations if you will take notice also of my Parenthesis And now my Reason intimated in a promise shall be made good in performance And since you will in the question about the Catholique Church abstract from the Roman and all other particulars I shall give some account of Catholiques who did not make the authority of the Catholique Church the ground and cause of their Beleef whereby onely God his Revelation cometh to us infallibly as you expresse your self in your first paper but this Prerogative they ascribed to the Holy Scripture to be it wherein and whereby we are infallibly assured of Gods Will as to what we should beleeve and do in order to salvation That the authority of the Catholique Church is of use towards Faith we deny not but the cause and ground of Faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertaind of the mind of God is not the Proposition of the Church but the Word of God And such being the state of the question betwixt us I shall for your shower of authorities you say you could power out against me give you or shew you a cloud of witnesses as the Apostle speaks Hebr. 12.1 against you Your shower could not wet me through but this cloud may direct you home This Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Church and Scriptures as you may see by the 8.19 20 21. Articles and therefore it is not my Opinion will appear not to be new but agreeable to ancient Catholiques in your own esteem The first shall be Saint Irenaeus Have you appealed to Saint Irenaeus unto Saint Irenaeus shall you goe He in his third book first chapter first words thus We have not known the disposing of our salvation by any other then those by whom the Gospel came to us which then indeed they preached afterwards delivered it to us in the Scriptures by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith So he Now that which is delivered in Scripture by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of Faith is the ground and cause of our Faith And such is the Gospel according to this Testimony The next for us is Clemens Alexandrinus in the seventh of his Stromata towards the end in the 757. p. of the Greek and Latine Edition He which is to be believed by himself reasonably is worthy to be believed by the Lords Scripture and Voice working by the Lord inwardly to the benefit of men So he Then according to him the Holy Scripture is not worthy to be beleeved by men but men are worthy of beleef by it And therefore that must ground our Faith because it is it whereby we beleeve others And therefore he saith in the following words Surely we use it as the Criterium for finding out of things And therefore points are to be decided and determined by authority of it which is his chief discourse against Heretiques even to the end of that book And if you please to peruse and consider it you shall find there that in his judgement the Catholique Church which he also there commends doth not conserve it self in that denomination by its own authority but by the Rule of Scripture Now that which rules the whole rules the parts the Scripture rules the whole then us So Origen upon Saint Matthew Hom. 25. We ought not therefore for confirmation of Doctrine to swear our own apprehensions and to bring into witnesse those which every one of us doth
understand and think to be according to Truth unless he shall shew them to be holy out of that which is contained in the Divine Scriptures as in the certain Temples of God what can be more to our purpose Then the Scripture is the Ground of Doctrines then of Faith As for Athanasius we need not his words knowing his practice of holding the equality of the Divine Nature in the second Person the Son of God against all the World Yet he speaks as he did if you will look upon him about the Incarnation of the Word at the latter end But then having taken occasion by these if thou wilt read the Divine Books and wilt apply thy minde to them shalt learn out of them more plainly and more perfectly the truth of what we have said So he Now where the Truth is learned more plainly and perfectly there is the ground of Truth In the Divine writings is the truth of those things more plainly and more perfectly learned After the same manner doth Tertullian bring in his suffrage in his Book of Praescriptions a little after the beginning of it thus Do we prove the Faith by the Persons or prove the Persons by the Faith And again Faith consists in the rule You have the Law and Salvation by the observation of it And soon after To know nothing against the rule is to know all things And again That which we are the Scriptures were from the beginning we are of them before it was otherwise before they were corrupted by you So he besides other passages wherein he witnesseth for us Saint Ambrose giveth us also his voice in his first Book to Gratian chap. 4. in the beginning thus But I will not that you believe an Argument O holy Emperour and our disputation let us ask the Scripture let us ask the Apostles let us ask the Prophets Then we are to be determined in our Belief by the Scriptures Saint Cyprian also who for order of time should have been put before gives his verdict for us in the beginning of his sixth Sermon concerning the Lords Prayer thus The Evangelical Precepts most beloved Brethren are nothing else but the Divine Magisteries the foundations of building our Hope the firmaments of corroborating our Faith the nutriments of chearing our heart the Gubernacles of directing our journey the safegards of obtaining Salvation which while they do instruct the Docile mindes of Believers upon Earth bring them to the Kingdome of Heaven So the Father Where you see the Scriptures are asserted immediately to be the Ground and Firmanent of Faith Yea neither doth Saint Austin seem to speak onely for your cause In the seventh Tome in the third Chapter of the Unity of the Church against the Epistle of Petilianus in the beginning he hath these words But as I began to say let us not hear these things I say these things thou sayest but let us hear these things the Lord saith There are certainly the Books of the Lord whose authority we both consent unto we both believe we both are obedient to there let us seek our Church there let us discusse our cause And soon after Let those things be taken out of your way which against one another we recite not out of the Divine Canonical books but otherwise And soon after Some may ask why I would have these things taken out of the way since if they brought forth your Communion is invincible he answers because I would not have the Church demonstrated by Humane Documents but by Divine Oracles and so to the end of the Chapter which he concludes thus therefore let us seek it the Church in the Holy Canonical Scriptures I have now made good my words to give you Catholick Testimonies on our side Amongst which Saint Austins authority gives advantage to plant Arguments upon thus If in businesses of dispute we must hear what the Lord saith not what man saith then the Scripture is the ground not humane authority But let us not hear what I say or thou saist saith the Father but what the Lord saith Again Where we must seek the Church there we must resolve our Faith But we must seek the Church in the Scriptures as the Father saith If the Church is to be proved by the Scriptures then the Scriptures are the ground of Faith because they are the ground of the Church there is no resolution of Faith but in that which is indemonstrable therefore not in the Church because that is demonstrated by the Scriptures as he saith Again Divine Oracles are the ground of Faith the Scriptures are the Divine Oracles as he saith as the Scripture saith as Saint Ignatius saith in his Epistle to the Church of Sâ—â—yrna Indeed the proper object of Faith Catholick is the Word of God not the Word of Man And proportionable the cause of this Faith must be divine authority not any authority of Man As demonstrative reason makes Science so humane authority make Opinion but Faith is an assent to that which is spoken by God as true because he speaketh it therefore the authority of the Church is not a mean apt to beget Faith because it is of another kinde and cannot exceed the nature of humane authority although it be the highest in the kinde if it be represented in a lawful General Council Yet even General Councils have erred and therefore they cannot he the Ground of Faith This is the prerogative of the Canonical books as the Father and all Antiquity calleth them but never did we hear of a Canonical Church The Scripture is the Canon is the rule not the Church The Church witnesseth Truth The Church keepeth Truth The Church defendeth Truth The Church Representative in a Council determineth Controversies authoritatively not infallibly and therefore bindes not unto Faith but to Peace not to Faith in the Conscience but to Peace in the Church not affirmatively that we should say it is true because they say it but negatively that we should not rashly oppose it as false because they define it as true Hitherto we go for the honour of the Church Catholick not Roman And now I have given you some reason of our Faith It followes now in your Reply or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Curch Answ I say so too But what from thence To professe a belief that there is a Catholique Church whereof part is triumphant in Heaven part on Earth expectant and to professe my self to belong to the Catholique Church is not inclusive of your sense that the Catholique Church is the ground of our belief We believe the Catholique Church grounded in the Scripture or built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone as Saint Paul speaks Ephes 2.20 Secondly This is not to your purpose because the Catholique Church as it is an object of Belief must be considered as invisible whereas you intend the
Faith in the Gospel And this is illustrated by the Samaritanes beleeving Christ through the testimony of the woman but when they came to Christ and saw him They said unto the woman we believe no more for thy saying for we have heard and seen that he indeed is the Saviour of the world the Christ John 4.42 So Saint Austin might be moved by the voyce of the Church to give an ear to the Truth of the Gospel and yet was settled in the Beleef of it from its self by the Spirit of God When he did beleeve the immediate cause of his Divine Faith was from the Gospel by the Spirit of God although before he did beleeve he was moved to think well of the Gospel by the authority of the Church So he did not belive the Gospel by the authority of the Church as a Theological principle but as an outward mean and help thereunto For the authority of the Church could not by its testimony of the Gospel make it properly credible because the testimony of the Church is to be made true by it And if it be not true in it self then the testimony is false So that before we know whether the Gospel be true we know not whether the testimony of the Church be true As also we cannot tell how to beleeve that the Church should alwayes give a true testimony as you suppose in every point but by the Scripture And therefore there is no ground or rest for Faith but in the Scripture Since if we beleeve the Church because the Scripture gives testimony of it and then the Scripture because the Church gives testimony thereof we must first beleeve the Scripture before we beleeve the Church Therefore we must terminate our Faith in the Scripture and if we do beleeve it beleeve it for it self it being the first credible Fifthly Look to the end of that chapter and there after he had disputed subtilly he doth conclude soberly But God forbid that I should not beleeve the Gospel and then concludes against his Adversary from thence as the rule of the difference betwixt them for Beleeving that saith he I do not find how to beleeve you c. And that the Scripture is the Rule he went by you may see in his 32. chapter against Cresconius whether let me if you please refer you for brevitie None can overcome S. Austin but S. Austin And therefore I need not say any thing to the second testimony which is taken out of him against Cresconius Yet observe Although of this there is no example certainly brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also we keep the Truth of the Holy Scriptures in this when we do that which hath pleased the whole Church saith he Namely in that which is not a ruled case in Scripture as the question was about the Truth of the Baptisme of Hereticks It seems then if it had been determined in Scripture there had been an end of it that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive saith he And this property absolute belongs to it not to humanitie Whosoever doth fear to be deceived by the obscurity of the Question may ask counsel touching it of the Church whom without doubt the Scripture it self doth shew saith he First here is an obscure question about practice so are not all points Some are clear in Scripture and yet the Propsition is universall that we must believe every thing by the proposal of the Church as if we must beleeve nothing but what the Church defineth and whatsoever it doth define that we must beleeve Secondly VVe should ask counsel onely which doth not suppose an absolute determination Thirdly which Church the Scripture doth without doubt shew then the Church is to be proved by Scripture again And without doubt doth shew but doth not shew to be alwayes without doubt and infallible Fourthly he afterwards goeth about to prove it against him by testimonies out of Scripture But behold yet again in a third Testimony of Saint Austin No peaceable man will be against the Church Answer Saint Austin is again welcome I say so too and shall anon end with the whole Sentence And yet once more in a fourth Testimony Saint Austin It is of most insolent madness to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth VVe answer VVe say so too in things of indifferency which every particular Church hath power in for it self and the Catholicke Church for all And yet all Catholick practices are not now observed by the Church of Rome as for one Infant Communion But according to the Father if the Authority of the Scripture doth prescribe which of these is to be done it is not to be doubted that we should do so as we read In such things then which are defined by Scripture we know what we should do intuitively to Scripture without asking counsel of the Church As certainly I may believe that Jesus is the Christ that he that believeth shall be saved immediately out of Scripture and not upon the Churches proposal And now I have delivered you from your fear of my rejecting the Fathers Surely we should love the Fathers though they were our Enemies and we have no reason to fear them when they are our Friends Therefore if you please to give me leave so far let me say as Nilus the Archbishop of Thessalonica as the Book bears title said in his first Book about the Primacy of the Pope or the difference between the Greek and Latin Churches It is very unreasonable that you who have not the Fathers for your examples should of your selves understand that which is better and we who have the Fathers should not Afterwards in your Reply you come to upbraid me with Devotion to modern men But this Belief of yours concerning me is not well grounded we delight not our selves in being Servants to Men in matters of Faith What is true we like in any what is not true we do not like in any In Divine writings we take all for there we consider not so much what is said as who saith in Humane Writings we pick for we consider not who speaketh but what is said agreeable to the Scriptures Therefore with them we deal as Saint Austin with Saint Cyprians authority in the forenamed chapter against Cresc What we find in them which is agreeable to the Canonical Scripture we receive with commendation what doth not with their leaves we leave But to make as short work with them as I can I answer first as many testimonies and more clear might be found in them against you I hope if those testimonies be for you let one be set against the other And if you say I should be moved by them because they are ours I answer Secondly If they agree with the sense of the Fathers you cannot condemn them if they do not agree we do Thirdly It is possible to be Even with you in the same kind by a retaliation of Pontificians against you But Fourthly I could
Luke 10.16 We say first this seems not to be rightly applyed to the businesse we are about for this was directed not to the Governors of the Church but to the seventy Disciples or Elders which were sent by Christ to preach the VVord Secondly If you doe extend it to the Representative Church yet doth it not command subjection of judgement alwayes to whatsoever is said but not to despise them as is intimated by what followes and he that despiseth you despiseth me VVe may differ without despising And Thirdly If you will from hence argue that whatsoever was determined in a Council was also determined by Christ then Honorius was by Christ determined an Heretick as you may see in the practicks of the sixth Oecumenical Synod as Nilus in his second Book And if you say that the Church cannot erre in a General Council then resolve Nilus the reason why the Pope doth not hear a General Council for if that General Council did not erre as by your argument it must not then the Pope did erre As for the other places of Holy Scripture which you produce of Christs being with his Church to the end of the world and of his promise of leading his Church into all truth VVe answer together First Though the promise be extendible to the end of the world yet it is not necessary to understand it so as that there shall alwaies be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles which is hard to affirm since we cannot say that there is such necessity for such assistance or such dispositions in the Governours of the Church to receive such assistance Secondly The Promise is made good by a sufficient direction of the Church to their end of happinesse although not without possibility of error For every simple error doth not deprive the Church of Salvation and then it may also recover it self from errour by more perusal of the Scriptures But if it may at all erre it hath not the property of a ground of Faith nor a just capacity of an Infallible communication of all things which are to be believed You go on Now this Church whose Authority is thus warranted did precede the Scriptures Answ VVarranted as a Church but not as so not as Infallible Did precede the Scriptures which for a great part were written upon emergent occasions as you say Answ As for the writing of Scriptures and the emergent occasions you may be further referred to Doctor Field whom you made use of against me VVhatsoever the occasion was the end was to make what was written a sufficient rule of Faith and Manners And as for your objection and inference upon it VVe answer with a distinction the Scripture is considerable two wayes either in respect to the substance of Doctrine or secondarily in respect to the manner of delivery by writing in the first regard the Scripture did precede the Church for the Church was begotten by it which to them was as certain as the written to us And if you could make your Traditions of proper name equally certain you would say somewhat And as for Scripture that which is written doth binde though it doth not properly binde as written You say that the Church was called the Pillar and ground of Truth before it was written and so you say might be said of other passages We answer As that place expressed it doth not appear to us that it was so called since first we find it in termes in Saint Pauls Epistle But if so or other like were used before the answer before will serve By all which places the authority of the Church is commended to us and we are referred to the Church as a Guide in all our Doubts So you say and so we say Where is the Adversary How doth this conclude contradictorily We confesse that the Authority of the Church is commended to us in Scripture but not directly in every place you name nor in any is it so commended to us as to ground our Faith We confesse we are referred to the Ministers for Direction and to the Governours for jurisdiction yet are not the Latter Masters of our Faith unto whom we should be bound in a blind Obedience of Universal assent or practice We take their advice but we are not by them determined in our Faith We may beleeve what they say but not because they say it As it is drawn from Scripture so it draweth us If they make it probable that it is so because they say it yet it hath not the certainty of Faith without the Word of God I should be very tender of incompliance with the judgement of the whole Church but yet I must have for my warrant of Faith the Lord saith And although there be no appeal from a General Council yet have they no infallible judgement You proceed even the Scripture it self is beleeved upon the Tradition and authority of the Church Answer This was touched before in the case of Saint Austin and it is in effect answered as before by Doctor Field Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church but we doe not take them to be Canonical by Tradition from the Church The authority of the Church moves me as to the Negative not to dissent but assent is settled to them as such in the way of Faith because they are such In thy Light we shall see Light as the Psalmist speaks Psalm 36.9 or by thy Light so by Scripture we see Scripture Next follows the Expostulation which may be put into this discourse Either we ground our beleef upon the Church or upon our own fancy and private Interpretation of Scripture c. Answer We deny your disjunction VVe ground our beleef neither upon the authority of the Church as you nor upon fancy neither as some have done who have been better friends to Romans then they have been to us as Doctour Whitaker told Campian upon a like imputation of Anabaptastical fancies VVe differ from you because we allow to private Christians a judgement of discretion or discerning which sure is commended in that precept Prove all things in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians 5.21 We differ from those who magnifie their private interpretations because we say they should be directed by their Ministers and ordered by the Bishops the Pastours of the Church chiefly when they are assembled in a General Council wherein is the highest power of Oyer and Terminer as we may speak of hearing and ending differences in the Church yet we cannot say that we are absolutely bound unto their Canons we having the judgement of private discretion and they not the judgement of Infallibility And if you cannot say that they are absolutely without any doubt but true without doubt we can say that we should not absolutely beleeve them Every possible defect of certainty in the Object excludes Faith the certainty whereof admits no falsity Therefore can we not presently yeeld or assent to whatsoever is by them defined
the Church not to permit the use of Scripture unto the People and also you do abate of the Universal Proposition in the first Paper that Divine Faith in all things is caused by the proposal of the Church and therefore if you would hold you to this the Controversie would be lessened betwixt us for dato non concesso that we are bound to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God by the authority of the Church yet when we do thus believe it then the immediate ground of our Faith in those things clearly set down is the written Word of God and not the authority of the Church So then your first Number is indeed in no Number for you cannot mean thus that we cannot believe any thing proposed plainly in Scripture unlesse we believe the authority of the Church in that particular And therefore when you have proved the authority of the Church to be that which causeth and determineth our Faith of Scripture to be the Word of God you will say lesse then formerly and untill you do prove it you say nothing As touching the expressions you make in the second Number of him who answered the Papers give him leave if not to be the adversary herein yet to differ from you and to think himself to be one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England Neither did you intend by courteous and respective words to draw him to your opinion Soft words alone will not do it but soft words with hard arguments may do more When we see a clear demonstration of truth it is no courtesie to yeild assent for the Understanding cannot refuse Truth when it doth shew it selfe But whether the Reply as you speak be as clear a demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter let me have the liberty and the civility if in these businesses it hath any place not to determine Only it is very hard to say who doth optimum quod sic as they speak the best of the kinde Yet also wise men may think that if there can be nothing more expected towards ths defence of your first position the cause is wanting to it And certainly such a wise man and ingenuous as you be will not content himselfe with any ascertainment but that which is absolute and uncapable of Error Therefore not to deceive you by your own commendations put it to issue bring it to the test try the debate betwixt us by this rule of Wisdome and Conscience also Tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum It is certain that the Scripture is Infallible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is Infallible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the Rule and Ground and Cause of Faith As for the good designe you mention here and in your Title to guide Souls redeemed by Christ to the happy Eternity I congratulate to you that desire but I am sorry that such a zeal is better then the way you lead them in Assuredly those Souls redeemed by the Blood of Christ may and shall come to happinesse without any Infallible Judge of Controversies on Earth For first those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture matters of question we are in no such danger by the ignorance of reserving a purpose not to contradict what we shall be convinced in on either part Secondly We may be directed in these points by Judges though not Infallible as unto the quiet of the Church Thirdly Untill your Infallible Judge appears to be truly such it is the best way not to be bound intuitively to his dictates for then we might be in possibility of being bound to believe an errour which is repugnant to the understanding Ex natura rei So that until you make good the Title of an infallible Judge whom as you say we are obliged under pain of damnation not to disbelieve I shall hold up my hand onely in admiration of your confidence And whilest you do demonstrate this that we are bound under pain of damnation not to disbelieve this Judge of yours You say you do demonstrate your former Position that the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church is the ground of our Faith So you yes because you say that the Catholique Church is the infallible Judge To this thus Is it the infallible Judge whereunto we are bound to submit our understandings in all things or not if in all things then we cannot believe what the Scripture saith in plain points without the proposal of the Church which now seems contrary to your mind if not in all things but onely whether the Scripture be the Word of God or in cases of Controversie then do you now go lesse then in your former paper against the nature of implicite Faith Secondly that the authority of the Church is not it upon which we resolvedly rest our Faith of the Scripture or the determination of Controversies we shall see when you come to it Thirdly what do you mean by the Church do you understand it formally of the people or representatively in an Assembly of the Pastors if you mean it of the people also how is infallibility vested in them Are we bound to stand to their judgement and they are to be in obedience to their Pastors Well then it must be understood of their Pastors What of all or most or one If of all when did they all Vote if of most when did most Vote If of one ordinary Pastor with or in a General Council then remember whensoever in your sense you name a Church it be so taken of the Pope and his Council General which yet you will not evince to be infallible by their authority If they were infallible they must be infallible by the Word of God as to us and then that again is the first ground of Faith and also secondly you will find that many priviledges which you have spoken of as to the Church do not belong to the Church Representative strictly but to all the people of the Church as invisible which as such comes not into this Controversie If then you come again in any discourse keep you within and to the bounds of the question and speak of the authority of the Church in the same sense as to be the ground of Faith Divine in all points or in the same particulars For if you proceed from the Churches being the ground of faith as towards the Scripture to be the Word of God To conclude that therefore it is the ground of faith indefinitely or universally you commit the fallacy à dicto secundum quid as also if you proceed from its being the ground of Faith in points of Controversie to the being the ground of Faith in all things the discourse hath the same fault And yet you say that in your progresse you leave nothing of concernment in my reply unanswered and also that you conclude contradictorily to me Sir Let me here
use my Liberty for your good If you had a mind to leave nothing in my reply of moment unanswered you would have followed me as a disputant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you would have opposed distinction to some incident arguments for professedly the answerer is not to dispute You would have given me answer to answer interpretation to testimonies with shewing either their impertinency or invaliditie And that excuse of yours lest you should be too long is surely too short to cover you That is not long whereof nothing can be abated as he said and that is my excuse And surely your Treatise is too long not only by your many repetitions which swell your paper but would have been too long had it been lesse it is too long by it self Who ever answered a rejoynder with a Treatise Shall I say that by your form of a Treatise it may seem that you have more mind to treat then to fight I am loath to be so bold neither doth it become my spirit to tell you that you do not stand your ground but you do not neither conclude contradictorily if your Treatise did prove that the authoritie of your Church is the ground of Faith in the Divinitie of the Scripture and in case of Controversie For your first paper spoke universally my Answer denied it and now you would prove it if you could particularly If you would conclude contradictorily to me you should have concluded in the same quantitie affirmatively to my negative This you here seem not to intend yet in other parts of your Treatise you would contend it And in the end you would arm your Treatise against me as if there were no difference betwixt Positive and Oppositive Divinity And this you doe by references but you should not have put the suit to reference without my consent So much for the Preface After the Preface you come to the Proof of the Title You mean the Title of this Paper which surely needs not to be proved because it is not delivered by way of Affirmation but of Disquisition ANd as for the Similitude you say of St. Anselme we like it very well For if the Tables be turned it doth very aptly belong to you who if you have not with a Roman contention for Masterie pulled out the Eyes of Men yet have put out the Light not allowing them the use of the Scripture you shut up the people in Darknesse and will not let them see the Sun of Righteousnesse in his own Orb of Scripture for fear it may be he should not seem now to rise but to go down in Rome and instead hereof you leave Men to walk by the Light of the Pope whom one compared to the Sun as the Emperour to the Moon Christ saith Search the Scriptures you say not yea you take away the use of all humble seeking of God for the knowledge of Truth because you have said that we must all submit our assents to the determinations of the Church So you see how your Opinion is practically impious and is disagreeable to your own directions For you say if they should seek of God they should find Onely you say we should set all passions prejudice aside with a calm humble mind beg of God to give us this grace of seeking truth Surely this Qualification of our addresse to God for the finding of Truth is very good and I would it were as well practised as delivered but let the world judge who is like to be most wanting in this Devotion and to exceed in passion and prejudice He who affirms all to be delivered infallibly by the Church or he that searcheth in Scripture particular Truths Infallibility pretended easily makes any man passionate against difference unlesse indeed he could make it good And he that is infallible is in right capacitie sure to have a necessary prejudice against different Opinions Neither since the times of the Apostles hath humilitie been usually seen to â—â—â—p companie with infallibilitie not that he who is most humble is not most likely not to erre but that he who saith he cannot erre is most likely not to be humble but as for prejudice by Education which you speak of also may I not as well retort it upon you I think in some respects it is not so applicable to me Indeed we do not inherit Religion as Lands but if when we come to abilitie of discerning which your Religion in its Principles will never let you come to we see good cause for our Religion Surely we have no reason to leave it because it was our Fathers although we doe not embrace it because it was our Fathers The relation it hath to our Ancestours hath no more moment in it then the Church may have upon you namely to be a considerable motive not to be your ultimate resolution thus for the first number of your proof 〈◊〉 that it is 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 even with you for the similitude by a saying of Tertullian in his Apologet at the end of the 9. chapter Caetiâ—â—s dâ— species facile concurrunt ut qua non vident qua sunt videre viatantur quae non â—â—nt So while you do not see what exceptions there are against you you see more see what are not exceptions against us and our way of Faith But therefore in your second Number you will prove your way by Scripture We now come to it And your Text is Esay the 35. from the fourth Verse to the ninth by parcels Say to the faint-hearted Take courage and fear not behold God himselfe will come and save you then shall the eyes of the Blind be lightned and the eares of the Deaf be opened and there shall be a path and a way and it shall be called an Holy way and this shall be unto you a direct way so that fools cannot erre by it Thus you order the Testimony To this we say 1. Whether it be intended by the Holy Ghost to respect the Primitive Church Christian mystically through the Jewish we cannot be certain but sure we may be that in the Letter it doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from captivity And therefore it may be you â—earing that this should be taken notice of do wisely leave out those passages which may seem to incline the Text to that sense and you take only that which you think is for your turn So you know who would have deceived Christ by omitting that part of Scripture which was against him although you will not allow to the people the Liberty of Scripture yet let us have all for our life in the dispute And it there be a mystical sense here yet you know the rule of Divines which is also not denyed by yours that mystical Divinity is not argumentative unlesse namely the mystical sense be expressed in Scripture which you are here to demonstrate 2. If it be understood of the Primitive Church through the Jewish as Saint Hierome indeed doth comment upon it
yet will it not 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 unlesse you can prove that whatsoever priviledges were promised to the first Church in the times of the Apostles should in full dimensions be alwayes extended to your Church and your Church onely Therefore your Isidor Clarius doth apply this Text to the time of our Saviour when he did make the Blind to See the Lame to Walk as he sent word to John the Baptist And therefore since it was signally accomplished then we cannot urge the performance of it in that equality in a sense spiritual which also seems to be acknowledged by Saint Hierome upon the place where the opening of the Ears of the Deaf he doth apply to the Scripture Preached and the way he saies to be God Now then as we cannot solidly argue from the promise of pouring out the gifts of the Holy Spirit which was solemnly and subfâ—â—a visibile made good upon the Apostles as â—oâ—hâ— Peter declared that there shall be the like effusion of immediate gifts upon the Church in the following ages which some Sectaries would plead so neither can we rationally conclude from this promise which was as that excellent manner and in the Letter perfected by our Saviour Christ that it shall be continued to any Church iâ— that measure of a spiritual kind If we cannot evince the same perfection in the same kinde surely can we not by our accommodation of sense evince the same perfection in another kind upon the former consideration because it is mystical and that not argumentative 3. This path and this way and this holy way so that fools cannot erre is upon supposition promised to the Church Is it not Well then if it be promised to the Church then the Church is not that way for that way is promised to the Church so that the Church is not absolutely that way but so far as it goeth that way which is as much as was said before and is not yet answered that the Church is regula regulata not regulans Take then the matter thus that way which the Church goes we must goâ—â— The Church goes by the way of Gods-Word revealed and so must we therefore we are not bound to follow the Church with blind obedience which excludes Faith because that includes Knowledge although it be contradistinguished to Science Fourthly If the promise did belong to the Church in all times yet not to any Church of one denomination therefore untill you can prove that your Church is all this makes nothing for you Particular Churches have not those properties which belong to the Universal Church as such And if you make a proof of the Church to be the holy way because the Church is holy how easily is that undone because there is more reason that the Scripture should be the holy way for that is perfectly holy or the Holy Ghost is the Judge because he is essentially holy but neither is the Church perfectly holy here nor essentially holy not in Heaven And besides secondly the Holy Church if you understand it with relation to the Creed as in your former Paper it is to be taken of the Church invisible which as such is on way And thus I have slighted your strong hold as it seems to you for hitherto you do fly very often In your third Number you come to an assertion of the necessity of an Infallible Judge You say that all Christians of whatsoever Religion do agree in this that there must be one Judge of all Controversies and Doubts which either be or can be in Religion So you You speak very largely of your supposition as if it were agreed to by all Christians but you do not consider that you do leave out that which makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the state of the question whether there must be an Infallible Judge on Earth for that is not consented to on all hands by all Religions indeed by none but yours That God either essentially taken or personally the Holy Ghost is the Supreme Universal Infallible Judge and onely in whose Authority we rest and whose word is the Ground of Faith we hold Under him subordinate Judges there are but not Infallible neither is it by your reason sufficiently confirmed that there should be on Earth any Infallible Judge For the defect of such a Judge on Earth doth not leave us free without any fault to follow our own private judgement in holding what we will For first it is impossible for us to hold what we will in our judgements We may possibly though not morally professe what we will although contrary to our judgements as many doe but we cannot assent to what we will because our Understanding is not free to take which part of the opposition it pleaseth by way of Will for it embraceth Truth naturally as it sees it and it cannot give a rational assent without a due conviction and therefore your implicite Faith is false and null Secondly We do not say that we should follow our own judgement of discretion without meanes of regulating our judgement but yet after we have perused the Definitions of Councils and Sentences of the Fathers we cannot resigne up our Assents to their Dictates upon their account but do examine them as the Beraeans did that which Saint Paul said untill we can finde them resolved into the Infallible rule of Holy Scripture For let me ask a Papist according to the renour of your first Paper What doth he believe he answers that which the Church believeth and why doth he believe it because the Church believeth it and why doth the Church believe it because it received it from the first Church through the Sentences of the Fathers or the Determinations of Councils Well but how shall the People know whether this Tradition of Doctrine is truly discerned and faithfully delivered but if so why is he bound to believe the first Church because either they were the Apostles oâ— had it from the Apostles And why doth he believe the Apostles Because they were inspired by the Holy Ghost Well in what they wroâ—e or in what they spoke or both In both Well but how do we know what they spoke We know what they wrote bears witnesse of it self so doth not to us what they spoke so that although they were inspired in whaâ— they spoke yet we know not what they spoke Neither can we be assured by a Divine Faith that what of them was not written is certainly derived And therefore all of Faith must be terminated and determined in that which is written And as towards Controversies we say thirdly that Christ hath sufficiently provided for the Salvation of Man in regard of means of knowledge without an Infallible Judge on Earth of their Controversies because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture and for matters of question we are not in any such danger if we do our endevour according to our condition to finde out Truth and do dispose our selves to Belief as we shall see
credibility to arise The Scripture doth with competent clearnesse furnish us against damnative error and the Church doth no more as you give us to understand at the end of this your Treatise and why then should we leave the Scripture which is acknowledged Infallible to go to the Church and what need then of an Infallible Judge what for Peace and Unity Then fourthly we say that the Decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto Peace Though their judgement cannot ingage undisputed assent yet their power they have from Christ doth require reverence and undisturbance in the difference It requires subscription if we see no cause of dissenting and if we do subjection to the censure All the authoritie of the world can go no further with us unlesse we might be hypocrites in differing by an outward act from our inward act of belief And yet wherein have we divided out accords from the former General Councils And therefore why are we charged with this Indictment as if we were opposite to the authoritie of the truly Catholique Church yet if we did differ without Opposition we keep the peace of the Church without question And that we must differ until we see God speaking believe his reason that said Omnis creata veritas c. All created veritie is defectible unlesse as it is rectified by the increased veritie Wherefore the assent neither to the Testimonie of Men or Angels doth infallibly lead into Truth save onely so far as they see the Testimonie of God speaking in them So then the assent of Faith is onely under obedience to him speaking And if you say that God doth speak in General Councils as he doth speak in his Word written prove it Yea how then will you avoyd blasphemie For doth God speak Contradictions For so one Council hath contradicted another And to use your own argument we are bound to submit our judgement onely to those who can judge of the inward act for so you distinguish betwixt temporal Judges and others but God only can judge of our internal acts therefore we must submit our assents onely to him and therefore to others no further then they speak according to him So that we cannot absolutely adhere to whatsoever is said in Councils which have erred Jewish and Christian too Now then you may think I spoke reason in my respects to General Councils without your unlimited subjection of Faith And therefore your admiration in the beginning of the 5 th page of this Paper which is grounded upon your interpretation of thaâ— of Esay is as unnecessarie And that absurditie which you would infer upon my Opinion that the wisest men in the world are most likely to erre this way by which he may in his interiour judgement go quite contrarie to all Christendome hath little in it out noise For first you suppose hereupon an infallible Judge upon earth which is the Question Secondly the wisest man is not most likely to erre if it be lawful to dissent from Universal councils because as such he is most apt to discern what is defined according to Truth what not Thirdly what think you of Saint Athanasius who differed in his judgement and profession too from most of Christendome then about the Divinitie of the Sonne Fourthly the Rule of Scripture is equally infallible and those who are wise if they prepare themselves for the search of Truth they are likely not to erre for if they go by the Rule they cannot erre because it is infallible But those who goe by the Church may erre because for ought is yet proved it is not infallible and those who are fools may by Scripture be made wise unto salvation And to this purpose the Scripture which is very sublime and heavenly in the matter yet is simple and plain and low in the manner of deliverie that those who are of meaner capacitie might hereby he sufficiently directed to life and salvation Therefore doe not tell me but prove to me that the Church is infallible and that you are the onely Church or else you do nothing but with fooles whom you find or make to goe your way In your next lines you do discharge me of singularitie in my Opinion For it appears by you that all but Roman Catholiques are of the same perswasion All but Roman Catholiques you say As if none were Catholiques but either of your Nation or of your Religion The first is a contradiction and the second is a falsitie for there were many Catholiques which were not of your Religion in those Points wherein we differ By the Fathers of the Church those were accounted Catholiques which withstood the plea of Faustinus the Popes Legate in the Carthaginian Council when he falsified the Nicene Canon of subjection to the Roman Bishop whereof no such copie could be found They were Catholiques who determined against Appeals to Rome who determined equal priviledges of other Churches to the Bishop of Rome They were Catholiques who held not Transubstantiation nor Purgatory nor your use of Images nor your Sacrament under one kind nor your other Sacraments as of proper Name nor Indulgencies And they were Catholiques who held that which you doe not hold as the Millenarie Opinion and Infant Communion And therefore to follow you the desperate consequence which you charge us with if we do not come over to your way flowes not from your premises unlesse you can make out an infallible assistance of your See and that this is by God appointed for our necessarie passage to salvation and the way promised in the Prophet Esay Nay if the people should be left for their guidance to the unanimous consent of the whole Church in points of Faith here would be a desperate consequence for I hope they were more like to finde the Articles of Faith in the leaves of Scripture which as to these is plain then in the perusal and collection of all the judgements of all the Fathers of all ages every where according to the rule of Lyrinensis or if we take the depositions of the Fathers in those properties which he describeth such whereby we are to be ruled that they must be holy Men wise Men they must hold the Catholick Faith and Communion they must persist in their Doctrine they must persist in it unto Death in the same sense as in the 39. Chapter against Heresies If you do not take the consent of the Church according to these circumstances you differ from him If you do how shall the poor people through all those labyrinths see the right way of wholsome Doctrine when who knows how many of them did not write at all How many of those who wrote were not such How many works of those who were such are to us perished How many bastard pieces are fathered on them How many of their writings corrupted How many or how few have touched upon our differences having not occasion by adversaries How many have differed from one another How
many have differed from themselves Is then this the way that fools cannot erre If wise men go this way surely this is their first errour that they go this way wherein nothing is found but perplexities and unsatisfiednesse Neither can they soberly raise the credit of their Doctrine by prime descent without interruption from the Apostolique age if all be well considered Such a confidence let me give a check to by application of a storie A Christian Prince was much seduced by a kind of men who professed a vast Art of giving a certain account of many Ages before and a trifling Courtier perceiving his humour made him believe that his Pedegree in antient race of Royal Blood might be fetched from Noah's Ark wherewith he being greatly delighted forthwith laid aside all businesse and gave himself to the search of the thing so earnestly that he suffered none to interrupt him whosoever no not Embassadours which were sent to him about most weighty affairs Many marvelled hereat but none durst speak their mind till at length his Cook whom he used sometimes as his Fool told him that the thing he went about was nothing for his honour for now saith he I worship your Majestie as a God but if we go once to Noahs Arke we must there your self and I both be akinne This the Storie which is so long that it reacheth you from top to toe for you would by a verie long series derive your authoritie as it were from Noahs Arke which you think represents your Church out of which there is no salvation You would run it up from verie many successions to the times of the Apostles and nothing will content you but this ancient Original You lay aside all other proofs in comparison of this succession not so much of Doctrine indeed as of Church Embassadours that are sent to you with Scripture you will not hear unlesse your Church may have the power of Interpretation infallibly in your own cause But let some of the Popes servants whom he makes his Fools inform him that that which he goes about is little for his Honour for now they worship him as a God but if they come to the times of the Apostles there will be found no such distance betwixt him and others and consanguinitie of Doctrine as it is expressed will be able to disinherit your points of difference formerly named with invocation of Saints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where doe we finde them Where may we read them Therefore urge not Antiquitie unlesse Truth goes along with it on your side and do not any more strain the consent of ages for Doctrines which as we may speak will be out of breath long before they come to that mightie height of the Apostolique time As for your instance of Saint Cyprian erring by perswasion of that which he held to be Scripture and St. Austins Crisis of his errour I Answer First You see here Saint Cyprian a Prime Doctor of the Church did then ground his Opinion upon Scripture without recourse to Tradition And this makes for us that he thought it no injurie to the Church to varie from what was held or practised upon respect to Scripture He undertook to think and doe otherwise then Christendome then in the point of Rebaptization and yet was not accused as an Heretique Secondly He erred groslie and yet not dangerouslie because he held his Opinion without malignance to the Church and so may we without peril of salvation And if you say the case is different betwixt him and us because that point wherein he went not with the Church was not then defined by a Council We answer what shall we say then of the times in the Church before there was any Council and therefore in those times the Rule of Faith and Action was without a Council and therefore this answer doth not satisfie or they were ruled only by Scripture which may satisfie you Thirdly He erred not in the substance of the Act when he pleaded Scripture but in the misapplication of Scripture to that case and therefore this Argument comes to the fallacie of accident and this makes no prejudice against Scripture which in it self is contrary to errour without defectibilitie and therefore he that indeed follows Scripture cannot erre because it is Infallible So cannot we say of the Church for ought yet we see by your Discourse Fourthly This makes no more disadvantage to the prerogative of Scripture then that the Pelagians for their Opinions urged the Testimonies of the Fathers which caused Saint Austin to make an Apologie for them Vobis Pelagianis when you Pelagians were not yet born the Fathers spake more securely namely of the power of nature Nay surely it makes a great deal lesse for the Father if in this he had followed the Fathers whom the Bitagians quoted had erred not by his Interpretation of them but it seems by their inconfideratenesse But we cannot charge Scripture with any such fault and therefore Saint Cyprian erred by misinterpretation And here also by the way we see how fallible a rule is the consent of the Fathers since if Saint Austin had ordered his belief thereby he had been overtaken with Pelagianisme Now as for Saint Austins crisis concerning this of Saint Cyprian that if he had lived to see the Determination of a plenary Council he would for his great humilitie and charitie straightway have yielded and preferred the General Council before his judgement to this besides what we now said about the undefinednesse of it by a Council we say It is like he would have yielded and this yet accrews not unto your cause much For first Saint Austin sayes for his great humilitie and charitie he would have yielded And this manner of Expression you may perceive doth abstract from a necessitie of duty Under bond of Duty these vertues have no freedome He was so humble of mind that he would have thought better of them he was so charitable that for this he would have offended none in this case but doth this infer that he was bound in conscience to sink his Opinion in the authoritie of their Definition No no. Humilitie and Charitie have in them no formalitie influxive unto Faith for this is seated in the understanding but to peace Therefore this yielding of his supposed upon the Case would have onely concerned his person as not to have opposed here not his judgement as if this should necessarily have been overcome by their Authority For the person may be bound when the Conscience cannot be bound so may the person yield as to the omission of opposite acts when the understanding yet keeps its former due apprehension Secondly this businesse of Saint Cyprian is such as is a matter of practice not clearly decided by Scripture but this avails not to an universal conclusion of ruling our faith by the Church which although you at the beginning did seem to wave yet here would in your discourse insinuate and wind in The summe of
this is We do not dispute a reverence to Councils but we cannot grant an undisputed reception of whatsoever is delivered by them In such determination we break not the peace but keep Faith for Gods Word So then your fourth Number in your sixt page might have been spared until you had upheld your supposition of construing that of Esay to be meant of the Church All you build thereupon must be ruinous Debile fundamentum fallit opus And besides what is there but repetitions Onely you observe therein another inconvenience in our Cause in that we doe not hold one Infallible Judge on earth which yet in effect you have had before But to view the moment thereof the better let me put what you would have into some form with all ingenuitie thus where there is not one Judge there will not be one Faith but there is one Faith therefore there is but one Judge Now if you will accept this Syllogism for yeare I shall answer to it by distinguishing if you mean in the proposition an Infallible Judge on Earth and such a Faith as is to be understood in the assumption according to the Text Ephes 4.5 then we deny the proposition for Faith there is not to be understood of Faith subjectively but Faith objectively and Faith in regard of the objects thereof may be entire and one though every one doth not hold them for the unity of Faith there depends not upon mens profession but upon coherence with it selfe and the exclusion of any other as towards appointment unto Salvation If you mean Faith otherwise we deny your assumption to be true to the sense of the Text. Whereas you say then that otherwise God had not well provided for the Salvation of men generally if but one of ten thousands without an Infallible Judge might hit the right sense of Scripture We Answer First you see here how your opinion doth miserably betray you to hard thoughts of Scripture and consequently of God in it Is not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvation Is it not given by inspiration Is it not profitable for Doctrine for Conviction for Correction for Instruction in Righteousnesse that the man of God might be absolute being made perfect unto every good work as Saint Paul to Timothy 2 Tim. 3.15 16. what can we desire more of Scripture in regard of sufficiency to its end then that it should be able to make us wise unto Salvation what can we want in it as in regard of the matter of it towards that end when as it is profitable as to those purposes and if there be not all so clear as that every one of the people may discerne the minde of God as towards a particular sense yet the Man of God the Minister of the Gospel by the Study and Learning he hath may be able to be thereby furnished to every good work that he may instruct others Now I think you will not think that Saint Paul by the Man of God here intended the Pope or any one Infallible Judge and therefore your postuâ—gre or an Infallible Judge is unreasonable Any Minister of the Gospel by his abilities is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people unto their happinesse and the Scripture was inspired to this purpose as it appears And what need then of an Infallible Judge It is true every Minister is not able to explicate all difficulties of Scripture no nor all your Popes and Councels neither but in things necessary their knowledge may be sufficient in points of debate there is no necessity of certain knowledge as unto Salvation And this you afterward come to when you take care to save the credit of the Church by a distinction that it cannot teach any damnative error so then it may erre but not teach damnative error The Scripture teacheth all things necessary cannot erre at all why then do we not rest here Therefore take you no more this way of reckoning we have an Infallible Judge therefore we must absolutely hear him But first prove the necessity of a Judge indefinitly and then who it is demonstratively and then we have done In the mean time you are in the perill of Treason not against Gods Judge but against God the Judge in setting up another Judge in the Consciences of men And if the subordinate Judge who is not Infallible goes without a Commission and makes Lawes himselfe is not this Treason So then the subordinate Judge determines by Scripture or not if not then he makes a new Law if he doth determine by Scripture then doth his determination bind by Authority of Scripture where of he is but a Minister And is not the Word by the Spirit of God Judicative What else is said Heb. 4.12 Consider well that Text and see if it may not answer all your objections against Scripture If you say the Word of God is a Dead Letter it cannot speak it is here denyed it is Living if you say that it cannot act it is denyed it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you say that cannot decide Controversies what is said here It is sharper then any two edged Sword It decides all Controversies of Faith and those points of Faith pretended which are not here it doth cut off If you say that cannot reach the Conscience what then can it is piercing even to the dividing of Soul and Spirit Joynts and Marrow If you say it cannot judge it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Critical exactly Judicative of the thoughts and notions of the heart and this is more then any Judge on Earth can do All that Judges on Earth can do in our question is but to declare and apply the decisions of Scripture against Error or Evil practice if they go higher they go above their Sphere And since they may for ought appears by you to the contrary misse of the right determination we use them but as Consuls not as dictators We consult them and then look to the Rule What then it is to submit your interiour Judgement as you speak to any one on Earth I leave it to you to judge since he whosoever he is can oblige assent no otherwise now then by light of Scripture which is the standing and onely rule we have to go by unto happiness And if we go any other way to settle our assent of truth which is to be preferred before unity we shall come no way to faith So you see what is the cause of the chasm betwixt us you cannot come to us because you are bound and captivated by your Infallibility which while you hold it holds you in incapacity of being better advised and we cannot come to you because you hold it It is hard to say which hath destroyed more Souls uncertainty of that Religion which we have in Scripture or Infallibility besides it and yet not so hard for Uncertainty may be helped but Infallibility hath no remedy And now forasmuch as you have not upon firm
which by the Trent Councel was Christened Authentique before it was born You make that to be the Scripture by which you must decide Controversies then you decide Controversies by Scripture And hath that no faults in it Is it every word Infallibly done If Infallibly done at first why did Clement the eighth vary from Sixtus quintus and why doth Isidor Clarius vary from him in thousands of places And do you any where find in Scripture that this Interpretation is made Canonical And are there none that find great fault with this Latin one If you will look into your Bellarmine in his third Book De verbo Dei 10. Chapter you may finde the contrary and although it goes under the account of an antient Edition and Hieronis yet in the Chapter before you may see he findes adversary objections and you may find by his confession that all is not his VVhat need then Sixtus Quintus have made it up And is not your Rhemish Testament very faultie Will you undertake to make it all good against Fulk And if you say that you may be certain of your Latin by the Church which you will prove to be infallible until you do prove it you doe again commit the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This should have been made irrefragably sure at first by Achillean invincible arguments and then we should have fallen down before you But again you tell us you will do it and presently fly at us for our Opinion Is there not one of yours who is prettily in his Opposition against Bishop Andrewes about the Popes temporal power compared to the pulex Qui cessim fugit fugit recessìm Et subsultibus hinc hinc citatis Vibrat cruscula And is there no more do so In some lines following of your Treatise we have nothing but petitions or repetitions and we answer no more till you prove more then this no man ever erred by following Scripture sincerely which you grant to be the infallible Word of God If they erred they erred from Scripture not by it But fools may be made wise by Scripture and wise men may erre by your Church until you make it infallible Nullibi pronior fidei lapsus quam ubi rei falsae gravis autor extitit as he said If they may teach that which is false wise men may also be deceived if they be not infallible they may teach that which is false But in the eighth line of the ninth page you oppose to me Saint Austins authoritie and of all the greatest Doctors which ever the Church had that they professed themselves unable to understand the Scriptures and that after many years study and how then c. We easily answer Saint Austin doth not say that the Scripture is absolutely and universally in all places so difficult that we may not get out from thence that which will direct us to Heaven for then he should contradict himself Doth he not say in his 4 th chapter of the 2. Book Dê Doct. Christ That there are some things indeed difficult but the obscurity is profitable to tame our pride by labour and to bring back our understanding from loathing cui facile investigata plerumque vilescum as he saith And fully again in in his 10 th Tome De verbis Apostoli Serm. the 13 th Verbi Dei altitudo c. The sublimitie of the Word of God doth exercise our study doth not deny to be understood If all were shut up there would be nothing whereby that which is obscure would be revealed Again if all were covered there would not be from whence the soul should receive nourishment and might have strength to knock at that which is shut Therefore your fallacie is à dicto secundum quid if from hence you would conclude all to be difficult yea so you would contradict Saint Peter who saith of Saint Pauls Epistles that somethings of them are hard to be understood not all Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam as the Rule is Yea you would contradict your self who say more then once that those things which are plain in Scripture you believe by the authority of Scripture But if from the asserting of some things difficult you would onely conclude that this cannot be the judge in Controversies as you seem to intend in your conclusion we say plainly this difficulty in some things of Scripture doth not inferre the necessity of an infallible Judge on earth your premisses do not conclude this and we allow unto you the use of Judges on earth although they be not infallible As Judges in civil Causes may and do sometimes erre yet is there use of them so also is there of Ecclesiastical Judges though not incapable of errour and again there is no peril of damnation on either side soberly held in points of Question and therefore the Scripture yet may be the way so direct that fools cannot erre in matters of necessary faith and practice And fourthly a General Council is the highest you can goe in humane Authoritie and yet this doth not binde unto Faith because it is not free from errour To which purpose believe Saint Austin if you will stand to his judgement in his third book against Maximinus Bish of the Arrians the fourteenth chapter Sed nunc nac ego Nicenum c. But now neither ought I produce the Nicene Council nor you that of Ariminum as boasting thereof neither am I held under the authority of this nor you of the other Let matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason be debated by Authorities of Scriptures not proper witnesses to any but common to both So he Where you see he prefers the authorities of Scripture before Councils which are proved not infallible even here because one was for the Arrians Here is Council against Council as there hath been Pope against Pope In this case what will you do which must you submit to Is one infallible contrary to another infallible If you must submit to both you submit to errour if to one why not to the other if that be infallible And this also will include uncertainty of all humane definitions about the Canon of Scripture which hath been spoken to before We come now to your second Reason in your eighth Number That you say comes into this Enthymene Many Controversies there are and may be yet very many more most neerly concerning the necessary means to salvation which can never be ended and undoubtedly decided by judgement and sentence of the Scriptures therefore the Scripture is not the Judge We answer to the Antecedent in those termes I deny it in both the branches if you mean by those things nearly concerning the necessary means to salvation such things as are indeed necessary to salvation otherwise you go upon a false supposition that there is a necessitie of a Judge on earth undoubtedly to decide that which is not necessarie Therefore chuse you which you will hold to if you mean those
following instances to be of the necessaries I deny the antecedent in both branches if not I deny your supposition Taking you in the former sence I say that there are not now many Controversies necessary to be determined unto salvation which may not undoubtedly be decided by Scripture and also I say there may not be yet many more The first branch I deny because though many things which are res questionis are not decided by Scripture yet many controversies in things necessary cannot be said not to be undoubtedly decided by Scripture because in things necessary there are not many Controversies And the second branch I denie because we cannot expect any new necessaries and a new Tradition is a certain contradiction Now to answer to your particulars for the proof of the antecedent Controversie may be moved you say concerning the lawfulness of working and not working of Saturdayes and Sundayes How will this Controversie be decided by the Scripture c. So you To which we return you this answer that there is enough in Scripture to ground the practice of the Church for the observing of the Lords day First by the proportion to the Equity of keeping one day in seven which wee have in the fourth Commandement There is in the Commandment morale naturae that there should be a time set a part for publicke worship and this by the Light of Nature the Heathens did see as Tully Non ut Consilii sic Sacrificii c. There is not a day appointed of Counsel as of sacrifice then there is a positive determination to the Jew of the seventh day to be the day in the week of their solemn service and to this is agreable by good analogle that Christians should keep one day in seven as well as the Jews Now the moments in Scripture for the Translation of the day are several the appellation of the Lords day most likely of the day we keep the meeting of the Disciples and breaking of bread on the first day of the week the order for the provision for the poor by Saint Paul to the Corinthians To these we add the Syriack Interpretation which in the first Epistle to the Corinthians the 11. Chapter and the 20. Verse expresseth it thus when therefore you meet you do not as it is just on the Lords Day eating and drinking which is to be understood of the Communion according to the scope of the place And therefore may we think that this point of practise was so competently set out in Scripture as that we cannot suspend the usage upon the Authoritie of the Church since we may conceive that the Church was bound by the former Considerations to celebrate the Day of Christs Resurrection which is the Hope of the new Creature The seventh Day to the Jew was Positive and Ceremonial and therefore upon that account under capacity of being altered and the Equity of one day in the week is now under practice upon the former intimations Secondly If the Jewish day ceaseth not in the Obligation to Christians then the time when Christians should keep is under the Divine Commandement and is none of those things wherein the Church hath power because as you will confesse it hath no authority to rescinde a Divine precept So then if by necessity of mean it is necessary to keep the Lords day it is lawfully done and upon duty if it be not necessary by necessity of mean then is this Example of yours impertinent And so this argument unanswerable as you esteem it is without much labour answered by those who make the Scripture in which God speaks by him the sole Infallible Judge not excluding subordinate Judges which are to regulate their decisions by the rule of the word unto which the Scripture is not silent and in other things no need to be sure of such a Judge as you would have And this second Answer to your first instance may be available for your satisfaction in your second instance from the 15. of the Acts. For if those precepts of the 〈◊〉 in that Council do binde all alwaies then is We matter determined by Scripture if they do not then are we at our Christian liberty from them without a formal discharge thereof from the Church And secondly that we are not held under obedience to those Lawes appears by the intention of their imposition for that time since they were imposed upon occasion of scandal to the weak Jew the reason whereof now ceaseth and therefore the Laws ubi ratio cessat lex cessat as the rule is Onely as the Ceremonial Laws binde yet quâ—ad genus as they speak that there should be a decent publick worship in the Church of God not quoad speciem that we should continue the use of the same Ceremonies so even these precepts which were in their nature Ceremonial do yet binde so far improportion of kinde that in things of indifferency we should have respect to our weak Brother Thirdly Neither can you say that either he that does abstain from those things forbidden or he that does not abstain is upon that account in danger of damnation And therefore as quoad hoc we distinguish of your term Necessary if you take this matter Necessary as absolutely so by the morality of it or perpetual by appointment then we deny it to be necessary so and why do not you keep them if onely necessary as to present practice then doth it not come up to our question for it is none of those things necessary to Salvation which are determinable by the Church and not by Scripture In your tenth Number you give us another case not umpired by Scripture whether the King is Head of the Church And this you say we thought once to be determined by Scripture affirmatively now not so you in effect this point is now no longer ascertained us by infallible judgement of Scripture so you in terms We answer First What is infallibly decided in Scripture will ever be so although we do not alwaies finde it but we cannot find any thing infallibly decided by the Church Secondly We do not say that every point is Infallibly decided in Scripture because it is not at all decided therefore if you mean us so you mistake us And now premising these considerations we answer that we do hold our principle still if you will understand as according to our mind Head of the Church as you hold the Pope to be Head of the Church so as that we are bound in Conscience as upon his Infallibility to be ruled by his dictates in matters of Religion we never held the King to be but to be Head of the Church so as to be the chief Governor thereof as being appointed by God to be the Keeper of both Tables so we hold him to be still This distinction makes an end as it may seem of your objection and yet secondly we do not pretend the King to be head of the Universal Church as you pretend
here is one place where the Father useth the words not in the Roman sence which may be made use of to another pupose about your opinion of merit and also if you will not mean it here of deserving this makes some diminution of respect to the book and some advantage more I shall make of this chapter in its place Many lines in your fourteenth page you have afterwards wherein we have nothing but vaunts or repetitions I will not trouble you with the latter nor my self with the former But towards the end of that page you would order the matter so as to hold your own and yet to give Scripture its due respects And you seem to bring it to this determination that when there is an acknowledgement made that the Scriptures are in themselves the Word of God it doth not derogate from Scripture to hold that yet they are not known to us by an infallible ground that they are the Word of God but by the testimony of the Church which in shorter terms is expressed by others of your Church that the authoritie of the Scripture doth depend upon the Church But this will not serve the covering is too short For first this distinction is too narrow to extend to the difference betwixt us in particular points of faith Therefore if you will yield that points of Religion are to be examined and ended infallibly by Scripture when we know it to be the Word of God then we will onely stick to this Question But if you will still maintain the infallibilitie of the Church in all her definitions then your composition will not be sufficient although it could satisfie as to that particular But secondly It will not satisfie because you do not sufficiently provide for the honour of the Scriptures authoritie and therefore you derogate from Scripture in this although you did take away no honour from Scripture as in regard of its truth Do you lay it to heart that the many questions betwixt us is about the authoritie of the Scripture the formal Reason of credibilitie is the authoritie That which makes me to believe it to be the Truth of God as being his Word is the Authoritie For if the credibilitie doth rise from the truth of it in it self you destroy your own cause for that you confesse the Scripture to be the infallible Word of God then betwixt us simply about the Truth of the Scripture there is no contest And doe not you affirm that the authoritie of the Church is the Ground of Faith because you think that the Church by its authoritie is worthy to be believed since it is infallible But why then do you not grant this authority to the Scripture since you confess it to be infallible If the reason of believing the Church be the infallibility of it according to you why is not the infallibility of the Scripture the reason of believing it since it is confessed infallible And if you say you do believe it to be so by the authority of the Church then the formal reason of believing it is not the infallibility of the Scripture but of the Church and yet the infallibility of the Church shall be the formal reason of believing it But you say you must know the Scripture to be infallible that I cannot do but by the Church Well but do not you then see that you preferre the authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture for the Church with you is to be believed for it self for so it must be or else the Scripture must be believed for it self or else we shall have in Divinity no principium primo primum wherein to rest Now if the Scripture be to be believed for it self then we have ended the businesse If the Church be to be believed for it self then we prefer the Authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture then you derogate from the authority of Scripture Thirdly the Church hath authority or not It hath you say then of it self or not what will you say If of it self what hath a company of Christians more to say for themselves then others If you say the authority comes from succession others also have had a constant succession And it must come to one first society Well where had that society its authority of it self or not If of it self what by revelation beside Scripture or not If beside then the charge of Anabaptisticalness is fallen upon you What then From Scripture Well then the Scripture in regard of those Texts which concern the Church is to be believed for it self and then why not in others Fourthly The Word of God in the substance and matter of it was before the Church therefore because the Church was begotten by it and therefore it must be known before the Church Yea reconcile your Opinion with that of Bellarmine in his first Book De Verbo Dei cap. 20. The Rule of Catholique Faith must be certain and known for if it be not known then it will not be a Rule to us If it be not certain it cannot be a Rule If it be a known Rule against Anabaptists why not also a known Rule against Papists and therefore that it must be made manifest by the Church is not necessary for how was it made manifest to the first Church to be the rule As for the instance of yours that Christ was made manifest to many by the Testimony of the Baptist and of the Apostles before the Scriptures were written and yet this derogate not from Scripture We answer soon First It is yet to be proved whether the Church hath that inspiration as John Baptist and the Apostles had for the first planting of the Church until that be made good your Argumentation is not Secondly Although the New Testament was not written the Old was and Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles preached no other Doctrine then was contained in the Old So our Saviour If ye had believed Moses ye would have believed me for he wrote of me in the 5. of Saint Iohn the 46. verse Thirdly If Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles were believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church as the first Disciples did why may not the Scriptures be believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church If the Apostles were believed immediately without the Church in what they said why may they not be believed also in what they wrote And surely to goe a little more close and deep if we speak properly there is not so much a ground of Faith as a cause if with the Schoolmen we grant as we may that Faith is a supernatural habit infused by God which disposeth the understanding to assert that which is said by God is true because he saith it not because the Church saith it And if you say that the Scripture and the Church are not opposite true when the Church ruleth it self by Scripture But if the Question be which proposal is
be intended to that purpose since also the words do in short fully represent the office of the Church the intention of the passage must be gathered by the scope according to the rule of the Schoolman Intelligentia dicti colligitur ex scopo loquendi Now the drift of Saint Paul was to instruct him how he should carry himself in the Church Was it reasonable then he should have account of the Church in the priviledges of it or in the duty thereof which is to hold forth and uphold truth For if the Infallibility of the Church were here affirmed then needed he not to have such instructions to take care how he behaved himself in the Church Since Infallible assistance is immediate and that which is immediate includes no time for the inspiration nor means of instruction therefore had your Roman Church been real in the asserting of Infallibility it had not needed eighteen years for the sitting of the Trent Council with Intermissions nor more for the consultation whether there should be any As for that which comes next of Athanasius it was in part answered before the Argument is this the Consubstantiality of the Son is by Athanasius after the determination of the Nicene Council called that Word of God by the Nicene Council which remaineth for ever and ever And this is no where clearly said in Scripture therefore somewhat which is not clearly said in Scripture may by a Council be determined to be the Word of God To this we answer we may grant you all of the Syllogism and yet nothing accrews to you if the words by the Nicene Council be understood ministerially to Scripture which they were bound to declare the sense of as to that point and so it did not binde with relation to their Authority but by Authority of Scripture which they declared the mind of in that case And therefore though so we grant the Argument yet do we deny your Consequence which you would make of it in your sense that the Church is infallible in the definitions of it since that which was defined was indeed Infallible and yet was not Infallibly defined for though the Council did not erre in that definition yet it might have erred and if it did not erre in that yet it might erre in other definitions and therefore can we not without suspense intuitively receive what they propose as the Word of God which is by you yet to be proved For secondly That which they have the Principles and Grounds of Scripture for it is more easie for them rightly to define in the Application of those principles unto particular cases as they had for that question about the Consubstantiality of the Son as Saint John the 10.30 I and my Father are one not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one Person but one in Nature but as for those questions whereof the solution is not so principled in Scripture as being not so necessary to be held on either part we cannot expect so likely a determination and yet if probable we cannot from thence urge it as an object of Faith That which is in Scripture according to equivalence of sense as that point is we may better credit upon account of Scripture then that which the ignorance of doth not damn since the Scripture gives us no moments of knowledge how to order our assent affirmatively or negatively in that But thirdly Saint Athanasius did not ground his Faith in the affirmative of that question upon the authority of the Nicene Council because he held it before the Council had determined it and therefore the cause of his Faith herein was not the authority of the Council And if that Council of Nice was to be believed for it selfe without respect to the matter as depending upon Scripture why not the Council of Ariminum to the contrary and therefore Saint S. Austin would refer it to Scripture betwixt him Maximinus a Bishop of the Arrians since the Councils was contrary And if any exception could have been made against the Council of Ariminum as towards the denial of such authority of it as is due to other Councils had it not been easie for the Father to have held the Doctrine upon the Authority of the Council of Nice though the other had been rejected In your 23. Number you do not fairly render my Answer I did not say that Christ would not be at all with his Church to the end of the world but it is not necessarily there meant that he would be with them unto the end of the world as he was with the Apostles by Infallible assistance so he did not promise he would be with the Successours of the Apostles And therefore if this be a simple mistake it is a fallacy a dicto secundum quid if you intended a slander it is worse Infallible assistance is not there promised and therefore the promise may be made good without it Neither was there such need of Infallible assistance whatsoever you say because the rule of Faith and Manners was to be determined in the Scripture which is the Infallible Word of God So that although they who followed the Apostles in the governance of the Church had been so disposed for Infallible assistance as the Apostles yet had there not been that use of the assistance Infallible but having not that disposition thereunto they wanted a condition and qualification for such assistance And God did not give an Infallible assistance to the Apostles because they were disposed for that gift of Infallibility but rather gave them that disposition that so they might be fitted for that Infallibility And so if he had intended such a measure of the Spirit to the Successors of the Apostles as to them he could have made them as capable thereof As for your Reason which you mention of leaving as secure direction for them who followed because the further we go from Christs time the more we are subject to uncertainty about his Doctrine therefore there is as much yea far more reason of this secure direction I answer You do not well consider what you say For if we be more subject to uncertainties the further we goe from Christ his time then cannot you urge the credit of those Traditions now equally to the certainty of them then supposing that there were any of Faith not written Secondly this Reason would be none if men would be guided by Scripture which hath now the same certainty as ever This is a Rule which will with equal infallibility hold at all times and unto which we are all equally obliged Again you would argue that the Church is secure from damnable errour because Christ promised to be with it to the end of the world and he is not with those who live in damnable errour But what is this to me you may conclude thus and yet not against me if you speak of damnable errour specificatively for if you mean it reduplicatively that all errour is damnable
that the invisible Church shall not perish which is true although the visible Church be under a possibilitie to erre since every errour is not destructive of salvation In the 25. Number you tell me what you have said before but that you have given me some additional Testimonies in the supplement of the last which have their answer without repetition Onely you no where I think find that Saint Jerome did receive all those books which you receive for Canonical and for those Authours which held the Consubstantiality of the Son and those several properties of the Holy Trinity you will give me leave with judicious men to suspect Eusebius Beleeve your Cardinal herein Bellarmin in his De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis p. 94.5 6. where he brings the attestation of Saint Athanasius and Saint Jerome to the same purpose and Saint Jerome calls him not onely an Arrian but the Prince of the Arrians sometimes sometimes the Ensign-bearer Yea the 7. Synod he sayes and the Apostolical Legats rejected his authority as being an Arrian Heretique as he saies And as for Austins expression that the relying on the Church's authority is the most true and inviolable Rule of Faith you refer it to your 16. Number and there referre me to the 13. chapter of the first book Contra Cresconium which I cannot see there If it should be so disertly yet this must be understood respectively to those cases wherein the Scripture doth not clearly passe the Verdict in which the authority of the Church is the best rule we can then have as towards practice But this in his Opinion doth not absolutely leave us to follow Tradition of the Church in points of Faith unlesse he contradicts himself as you shall see at the end But you are afraid of want of Number to make noise because you say I said you had no other Testimony but Saint Austins I did not say that you had none but his absolutely but you had none but his that I could see of those you produced Neither him indeed if you please to tell us what you see Therefore we shall look over your reinforcing his and the main testimony for your cause in my answer whereunto I see yet no place for amendments or abatement I said if you consider the whole tenâ—â—r of the chapter you may be inclined to think that it came from him in some heat of dispute and methinks I may think so still Your men are wont to answer evidences of the Fathers which are against them when they please that such passages came from them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and surely we may have that liberty when there is such occasion given for us to interpret them as here if we consider how he was displeased with himself for a former respect to that Epistle and also if we take notice of his short returns of discourse in this Epistle and also if we mark his check and correcting and taking up himself towards the end of the chapter with an absit Sed absit ut ego Evangelio non credam And if this answer doth not weigh with you then I gave you another that this might be spoken of himself not in sensu composito as then but in sensu diviso as in order to that time when he was a Manichee himself To which purpose I told you it was familiar to him and other writers of that part of the world to expresse a tense more then past by the imperfect and the sense is that when he was a Manichee he would not have believed the Gospel but that the authority of the Church had moved him to it One place of this usage I found to be in a chapter you quoted in his De Predestinatione Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 1. s 14. Qui igitur opus est ut eorum ferutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haresis â—riretur non habuerunt necessitatem in hâc difficili ad solvendum quastione versari quod procul dubio facerem si respondere talibus cogerentur where you have the Imperfect Tense for the Tense more past facerent for fecissent and so the other So in his first Book of Retract cap. 51. Profecto non dixissem si jam â—uns essem literis Sucris ita eruditus ut recolerem where you have essem for fuissem and so the other And also by the way let me observe somewhat from those two places towards the main question besides the use of them in the way of Criticisme For by the former you have the reason why the Tradition of the Church in Doctrines received will not make an end of our differences since the questions were not then started and also by the second you may observe that we cannot swallow all that was said by Saint Austin without chewing since he sayes himself that had he been so well instructed he would not have said this and that And indeed his books of Retractations are books against you and do conclude wholly that we are not to take whatsoever the Fathers wrote to be as true as Gospel Yea some such books of Retractations all of them might have made as some think Origen did although they are perished as to us But the answers which I gave you to that passage of Saint Austin will not content you Therefore you endevour to shew at large that they will not serve You say unlesse he will stand to that ground he must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary What ground do you mean VVhat that he was moved by the Churches Infallible Authority as you would conclude at every turn No supposing him not to speak in aestu Sermonis yet what he said against his Adversary was reasonable without urging the Infallible authority For the consent of the Church might be considered by him as a condition towards the reception of any doctrine and yet not to be that which he built his Faith upon as upon an Infallible ground You may know the Causa sine qua non is not a cause although such a thing be not without it yet is not this the cause thereof And therefore make what you can of the place it will not afford you a firm foundation if his authority could do it You say that this is his first argument to shew that his Adversary by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle could prove nothing against those who as yet have not believed the Gospel So you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then Because the Adversary can prove nothing by Scripture to those that deny it therefore Saint Austin must infer that the authority of the Church is infallible and he must believe the Gospel upon no other ground VVhat consequence is this as if because Saint Austins adversary cared not for the judgement of the Church therefore we must be guilty of that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath so much wronged the Church as nothing more This
Sectaries agreeing with you in this point I understand not how you could say that none but we held a Judge infallible And indeed without an infallible guide every man might proceed as if your faith were fallible and so give an infallible assent to nothing I did never say that without such a judge we should be free to follow without any fault our private judgement in holding what we will as you insinuate but I said otherwise every man might be free to believe what he judged best and so we should have as many Religions as there be private and different judgements Had you put these my words you had not had a word to say But you thought good to put such words as you knew how to answer and to leave out my true words and to say nothing to the argument by which I proved them And so that argument still standing in force all that you say against your own saying is from the purpose 4. You adde that you doe not say we should follow our own judgement of discretion without means of regulating our judgements But mark how in the next words you take away all means for to take away all infallible means is to take away all means able to produce an infallible assent to faith to have us surely guided in matters of faith for you say yet after we have perused the Definitions of Councils we cannot resign up our assents to their Dictates upon their account but do examine as the Bereans did which Saint Paul said untill we can find them resolved into the infallible Rule of Holy Scripture So you far from the spirit of that great Saint Gregory who said Li. 1. Ep. 24. I do professe my self to reverence the first foure Councils as I reverence the four Books of the Gospel And in like manner I do receive the fifth Council whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anatheme Thus he received all the lawful General Councils which had been before him for there were but five But whereas you will not resign up your assent to the Definitions of Councils until you first can find them resolved into the infallible Rule of Scripture I must tell you first that you will still be strongly pressed to shew upon what infallible principle you take Scripture by an infallible assent to be the undoubted Word of God and then you shall see how the whole Machin of your religion topleth tumbleth to the ground for there cannot be a more groundles ground See of this chap. 3. Numb 20. then that ground upon which you by rejecting the infallible authoritie of the Church are forced to build your whole religion to wit that you by the meer reading of the Scripture can by its Light as you discover the Sun by its Light discover it so manifestly to be the undoubted Word of God that this discovery sufficeth to ground your infallible assent to this veritie And it must be a far surer discovery then that by which we discover the Sunne by his Light for this discovery can onely ground a natural certaintie the other discovery must ground a supernatural not certainly but infallibly Secondly I must tell you that these your proceedings to a private review after you have perused the Definitions of the Councils to examine them until you find them resolved into the infallible Rule of Scripture of which resolution you make your private judgements the Iudge to open awide gap to Heresie as I have shewed in the last chapter Numb 2. And for the importance of the matter I will here again further declare in an example which hereafter also will stand me in much use Let us take an Arrian Cobler to this man this your Doctrine giveth the final review of the Council of Nice and you give him leave after he hath perused the definitions of this Council defining God the Son to be of the self same individual substance with his Father to examine them until he find them resolved into the infallible rule of Scripture He doth examine them and chiefly how they agree with that text I and my Father are one on which Text you * Chap. 4. Number 57. afterwards confess the infallibilitie of this definition to be chiefly grounded and therefore St. Athanasius did press it thrice Now in the examining of the conformity of this definition with this text the Arrian Cobler by his poor understanding is easily able to see that which a wiser man would yet see sooner that he is put upon a necessitie to inquire how God the Son and his Father are one whether it be by affection onely as Arrians hold or One in the self same individual substance as the Councel defineth and inquiring this he calls to his mind that other text Jo. 17. v. 21. where Christ prayeth That all his Disciples may be one thing as thou Father in me and I in thee Here will this Cobler say because he hath often been instructed by his own Doctors Christ who said I and my Father are one thing demandeth that his Disciples may be one thing as he and his Father are one thing But he doth not demand that his Disciples may be all one thing in the self same individual substance Therefore he concludes Christ is not one thing in the selfe same individuall substance with his Father but one thing in affection onely as his Disciples might come to be one thing False therefore would he say is this definition of the Council which cannot be resolved into the infallible Word of God in which all things necessary to salvation as this point is are plainly set down as this point is not for this is the plainest place and yet conferring it with the other I find it not evidently agreeing with the Definition of the Council but rather evidently against it by which I conclude in this my Review the Definition of the Council to be false Most learned Sir either convince this Cobler by some clearer Text of Scripture which I am sure if this Text fail is impossible or else to the eternal good of misled souls confesse that if once you give private men leave to make a Review of the Definitions of Councils you can find no means upon earth to put an end unto our endless controversies the Scriptures alone not sufficing for this end as I shall shew in the next chap. without you take the Scriptures as they send us to the Church bidding us hear her under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens 5. Thirdly Learned Sir I must tell you that this your Doctrine maketh the Definition of true Councils and their final determinations to be indeed no Definitions nor final Determinations at all For you make all those great Fathers of the Church to assemble themselves from so remote parts of the world onely to talk and discourse about such and such points in controversie and to leave the controversies themselves undefined and undermined to be finally defined and determined onely
whether these true and uncorrupted words of Scripture be taken in this place in their common sense or taken Figuratively or spoken mystically of some other thing Now how is it possible by Scripture onely to come to have an infallible knowledge of this for it dependeth merely on the secret free will of God to use these words here either Mystically or Figuratively or in their plain vulgar sense To know and that infallibly This secret free-will of God I must have a Revelation and such a one as no doubt can be made of it Where find I this Revelation in Scripture Fourthly your learned Sanctius De Sacra Scriptura Col. 409. having said That Holy Scripture in these things which are necessary to salvation is clear he assigns no fewer then nineteen Rules necessary to the true knowledge thereof besides the having the Spirit of God and the reading the Scripture attentively and the understanding the words and places thereof And Scharpius in Cursu Theologico de Scriptoribus controvers 8. P. 44. assigneth twenty Rules for the understanding the Scripture which unless they be kept we cannot but erre But surely it is very easie to keep them No such matter For he exacts to know Original Languages to discuss the words Phrases and Hebraisms to confer the places which are like and unlike to one another c. Tell me now do all these and the former Rules shew a plain easie way to infallibility especially we having no sure knowledge that all these fallible Rules will at last produce infallibility Good God! Is this the way promised to be so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it Fifthly I must adde a saying of your so much esteemed Chillingworth who in his Praeface Numb 30. saith No more certain Signe that a point is not evident then when honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves Liberty of Judgement after mature consideration of the matter do differ about it About how many points do you and your Brothers differ which I have in this Chapter shewed to be points mainly necessary to Salvation which according to this Rule of knowing what is evident what not are evidently not set down plainly in Scripture And to speak the plain truth this ground upon which you and yours are still forced to stand so to withstand the necessity of one Infallible living Judge seemeth a plain Paradox 6. In one sense as I have often noted we still grant all things necessary to Salvation to be set down in Scripture to wit in these Texts in which the Scripture bids us Hear the Church and that under pain of being accounted by a sentence ratified in Heaven Publicans and Heathens and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her by any false Doctrine that She is Pillar and Ground of Truth That the Holy Ghost abideth with her for ever teaching her all Truth That Gods Spirit shall not depart from the Mouth of her seed nor her seeds seed And such like places which I shall in due place Chap. 4. Num. 58. to 64. shew most forcibly to prove this verity And the very reading of them sheweth them to be no less plain and cleer to this purpose then those places which you cry out to be evident for the proof of every point which is necessary to salvation And I am sure you can bring no such evident Texts for all yea for any of these points which I have already said in this chapter not to be evidently set down in Scripture though they be of prime necessity as others also which I shall by and by adde The Scripture alone by it self in which sense you speak doth not as these places will demonstrate set down all things necessary to salvation yet she setteth down and that first more clearly then she doth set down many such necessary points a Command to go to the Church for our full instruction So Saint Paul was taught all things necessary for his knowledge by those few words Act 9.6 Goe into the City and it shall be told what thou must do That all might see this City of the Church he placed it on a Mountain whence all necessary points are delivered from a living Oracle speaking so distinctly that no doubt can remain of the true sense or if there be made any doubt of any thing of importance this doubt will presently be cleared by some new Declaration authentically notified unto us by our Pastours and Doctours which God gave us as the Scripture saith That we should not be Children wavering and carried about with the wind of false doctrine with circumvention of error 7. But to go on with your Assertion all things necessary to salvation say you are plainly set down in Scripture This is your main foundation of Faith making you not onely to take Scriptures but to take Scriptures onely and nothing but Scriptures for the ground of your Faith this ground I say must needs be plainly set down in Scripture otherwise according to your own words What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary Again if this be not plainly set down in Scripture it will remain uncertain to us whether God did intended to have all such necessary things taught us by the Scripture taken by it self alone or whether God intended the Scripture for divers other ends provinding sufficiently for this end by sending us to the Church for our further instruction That then which I call for again and again is to have plainly set down to me in Scripture that God intended by the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone to teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation shew me the Texes 8. You go about to shew me them And first you press the second time that of Saint Paul to Timothy 2.15 16. Take for my first answer that which I gave you when you first alledged this place chap. 1. Numb 3. And you must pardon me if I say that place speaketh of Scriptures interpreted by the Church to whom I think it is fitter to give this Office then to let every Cobler usurp it as I have shewed you do chap. 1. Numb 2. and chap. 2. Numb 4. the Scriptures thus profaned and by such interpretations truly discanoned as I may say are rather subject to that effect which Saint Paul his Epistles according to St. Peter had with some men that is they are subject to be depraved by them to the perdition of their Interpreters where by the way you are again to take notice that St. Peter saith Interpreters depraved those places of Saint Paul to their damnation though these places were hard as Saint Peter saith and consequently these places did not according to you doctrine contain points necessary to salvation Whence you see that your proceedings in allowing much liberty of Interpretations even in hard points may easily prove damnable It was then true which I told you in another place That though the Scripture be
a most right Rule yet it is very commonly so crookedly applied that we stand in need of a better security of the interpretation of it in which the very carnel of the Letter doth consist then we have of the interpretation finally stood unto made by the private judgement of our own discretion I know your Answer is that it is accidental to this Rule to be misapplied and that this cannot infringe the authoritie of Scripture It doth not indeed infringe the Authority of Scripture used as God would have it used with due submission to the publick interpretation of his Church Otherwise not for want of infallibilitie in Scripture but by the abundance of fallibility in our private judgements of discretion it followeth that we poor creatures shall be subject to be misled most pittifully without God doth provide us of an infallible interpreter Neither is this to speak more irreverently of Scriptute then Saint Peter spoke of Saint Pauls Epistles Nothing more clear then that the words of Scripture are capable of several senses and when the senses be several it must needs depend upon the inward and most secret intention of God to have had an intention to use these words to such or such a sense onely or to both if he pleased How shall we infallibly know Gods secret intention but by an interpreter having infallible assistance from the same Holy Spirit who assisted those who did write the Scripture Wherefore we cannot but wonder to see how much scope you give to such poor creatures as ignorant men are by thrusting the whole Bible into every mans hands and investing him with so ample a faculty to interpret it without any interior submission to the Church although the interior judgement be the very seat of damnable error or saving Truth that he may follow in his judgement what he shall sincerely judge to be truest In so much that he may in his own interpretation stand out in his judgement against the interpretations of whole General Councils And yet this very self same man is wisely by you sent to the Minister And any Minister of the Gospel say you but I must not say Any General Council is able competently through the Scripture to direct the People to their happiness And the Scripture was inspired to this purpose Happy Ministers Happy people led so securely Only unhappy misled people are we who had rather say The Scripture was inspired that through it General Councils might securely direct the people to their happiness then say with my good adversary any Minister of the Gospel is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people to their happinesse And the Scriptures were inspired to this purpose Doe but allow me this to the Church that it can competently through the Scripture direct the people their happiness and we will not contend with you whether this competent direction to happiness shall be called an infallible direction or no though we think it most certain that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happiness Now because by the way I did say our Church could not erre in damnative errors you conceive me to grant that it may erre in points not damnative No Sir when I said these words I did only take and subsume that which you your selves most commonly grant unto the Church that it cannot erre in damnative matters This alone giveth her a main advantage over any Minister or any private Interpreter This alone giveth a demonstrable reason why we should not follow our own interpretations which may be damnative as those interpretations were which some men made of Saint Pauls Epistles to their own perdition as Saint Peter saith And surely such Interpretations are then likely to be damnative when they are flatly contrary to the Interpretations of the Church What Commission the Church had for her infallibilitie I shall shew in due place And to shew it more fully I will press again your Text and give a second answer unto it by answering the words following which are All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and it is profitable for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction so your Bible reads for instruction in righteousnesse Is it given by Inspiration yes What prove you from hence but that you and yours have a notable Talent in not concluding contradictorily You should conclude thus All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God But all Doctrine given by Inspiration from God containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation Therefore all Scripture contains plainly all things necessary to salvation it doth this taking the word Necessary and the word plainly as I have shewed they must be taken in the beginning of this chapter Well but you will hit of it by and by after three or foure Consequences of no Consequence For you goe thus on Is not all Scripture profitable for Doctrine Yes in a high Degree it teacheth most eminent Vertues and among other Vertues it teacheth most wholesome submission and obedience to the Church and by her all things necessary for salvation And thus the Scripture by her self alone is very profitable But Sir I expected a Contradictory Conclusion Deduce me from these words this Consequence Ergo God intended by the Scriptures alone to teach us with infallibilitie all things necessarie to salvation or all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture still understanding these words as I in the beginning shewed they must be understood Go on Is it not profitable for reproof Yes Sir But where is the contradictorie Conclusion I expected Is it not profitable for correction Yes But I want still this Contradictorie Conclusion Is it not profitable for instruction in Righteousnesse Yes And now all your Powder is spent and you have not hit the marke for I have not yet the Contradictorie Conclusion I so long expected Hear now a true Contradictorie Conclusion against your selfe out of this Text. That which in this Text is said onely to be profitable for these ends is not thereby said to be sufficient even to these ends and yet much lesse sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to Salvation by it self alone But the Scripture in this Text is only said to be profitable to these ends here expressed Therefore it is not hereby said to be sufficient and that by it self alone even to these ends and much less by it self alone sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation plainly setting down what is to be held in all things necessary to Salvation Again for a third answer You cannot say St. Paul spoke these words of the New Testament which for some fourty years after Saint Paul spoke these words was not finished Therefore Saint Paul in this Text doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture whence he is most weakly cited to prove from hence that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation Again when this is proved it is manifest that part of the
which collectively taken maketh your other ground of Christian belief to stand upon therefore Saint Pauls words were spoken of the Church as of such a pillar of truth and such a ground of truth as might then be securely relied upon in all matters of faith and confessedly as then the true believers had not the Scriptures sufficiently compleated to be their adaequate Rule of Faith Now after the writings of these Scripture recommending the Church as the pillar and ground of Truth this ground was so far from growing weaker that the confirmation of Scripture added new force to it I have now shewed you the Text in which without any subordination to Scripture as then not written the Church was by Saint Paul called the pillar and ground of Truth Now shew me your Text in which there must be a subordination and such a subordination as may make the Church not to be truly such a pillar and such a ground of Truth as all men may not now rely on it any longer as they did before all Scripture was written I call for your Text not for your reason against which other Reasons will soon be found And as for that saying of Saint Irenaus the Scripture is the pillar and ground of Truth it hath not upon his saying greater authority then the terming of the Church the pillar and ground of truth hath upon the authority of St. Paul My proofe as grounded on S. Paul is stronger then yours as grounded on St. Irenaeus yet I make not St. Irenaeus contrary to St. Paul what he saith of the Scripture I yeild for true yeild me what St. Paul saith that I may ground my faith upon the Church This I cannot do unless God speaketh by his Church If God speaketh by his Church I pray believe what he speaketh He telleth me by his Church that I am to admitt of the Scriptures as his undoubted word upon this his telling me so I ground that faith by which I believe the Scriptures so that I believe the Scriptures for the Church which faith of mine is as surely grounded as was the faith of the true believers who at that very time in which St. Paul did write these words did ground their faith in all points upon the Church as you cannot deny And thus in repect of us the Church is first believed independently of Scripture to which we are most prudently moved by such motives as I have specified and the Scripture in order to us cometh to be acknowledged as Gods word upon the authority of the Church there being no other assured stay speaking of the whole and undoubted Canon to know the true Scripture from false The Scripture is not the first Principle but upon supposition that every one among christians admit of it for Gods Word and so we argue out of it against one another But speaking of him who is to begin to be a christian as where all once began he cannot admit of Scripture as men admit of the first Principles of Sciences which of themselves appear so clearly true that all you can bring to prove their truth will appear lesse true then those Principles appear by themselves The Scripture is not the first Principle in this sense appearing evidently by its own light to be Gods Word as I have shewed at large And this answereth all you say until you come to make good your new interpretation of St. Pauls words an interpretation unheard of to all antiquity and to all men until this age Necessity now forced men to their shifts to put off Scripture when it made against them These words must now be necessarily referred to that which is said in the verse following concerning the mystery of the Incarnation and so though St. Paul did write this Epistle in Greek he must needs be said to have used here an Ebraisme And why must he needs be said to have done so here in this particular place because somtimes such Ebraisms be used in the new Testament Whether this reason wil justifie so new an interpretation of words even for a thousand and five hundered yeares applied to the Church never applied to the Mistery of the Incarnation shall be determined even by the Principles of one of your greatest Divines now living I mean Dr. Jeremy Taylor in his Discourse of the Liberty of prophecying Sect. 4. An other great pretence for justifying new interpretations is the conference of places which you would use here by conferring this place to some few places in which such Ebraismes be used in Greek A thing of such indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sence alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine writers there is nothing which may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may amuse the most intelligent observours This he proveth by several examples and then he truly saith This is a fallacy a Posse ad esse It is possible a thing sometimes may be so therefore undoubtedly here it is so There be such Ebraismes some where therefore they must needs be here where for a thousand and five hundred yeares no man observed any such thing Most truly saith the same Doctor This is the great way of answering all the Arguments which can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend Sir you who make the Scripture judge of all Controversies should not of all men justifie such liberty of new interpretation as this your proceeding would bring in Or if you doe you will soon see and may already see it that your judge will be made to speak what each party pleaseth And thus will be unable to decide any thing But to proceed The Church truly being before the Canon was written the pillar and ground of truth in it self without any subordinatiō so that the believers looked no further then that God taught them such and such things by the Church I have from the text all I desire to prove that Gods assistance promised to the Church should reach as farre as infallibility Whether this infallibility be equal to that of the Apostles or no maketh not to the purpose so long as it is granted that our faith relying upon her authority doth rely as securely as that which relies upon the Pillar and ground of truth Here you come in with a parenthesis noting me for a French Catholique for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a council Sir you are no Schollar if you know not that all Roman Catholiques allow infallibility to the Pope defining with a council 24 But because I say also that God speaketh by his Church proposing infallibly his truth by her mouth you tell me that I hence may plainly see how the Roman tyranny drawes me necessarily into peril of blasphemy A deepe charge needing a strong proof And yet all your proof is because now there is no need of Scripture since God speakes as infallibly by his Church as
the premises which we do not in their propriety affirme as namely that they are to take the Scripture for the sole and onely Judge in all necessary controversies we say properly and formally Scripture is not the judge but as the Law and rule by which judgement is to be given in controversies necessary 2. We do not allow him to make a review of what is decreed in a Generall Councell as in order to any other but onely for himself He hath no autoritative judgement respecting others but a rationall judgement respecting himself So you say that of us which we do not say And then again you will not say of us that which we do say which should spoyle the Argumentation for though we say he may not for he cannot submit his judgement to a Generall Councell unlesse he sees what is determined thereby to be true yet may he submit his person unto censure and so not oppose the Church Representative Again 3. In this your Argument you do not conclude home for you conclude this is but to leave men in a mighty hazard of misunderstanding the word of God and falling into heresie So then upon the whole matter this argumentation of yours is not good because somewhat in it nay much is denied and somewhat not by you allowed as it should be and then it concludes but accidentally if probably not necessarily if necessarily not demonstratively if demonstratively not a priori for it doth not by way of a certain efficient cause induce the conclusion of heresie nor is heresie the finall cause of our intending this liberty to the people Therfore be not so forward in high termes of your ratiocination Yea if this allowance to the people did certainly and by way of Emanation produce heresie it would not of it self produce any more than materiall heresie in points of necessary faith which need not be brought into question not heresie formal which imports opposition to the Church And this respect of heresie you do surely bend the bow against Indeed every opposition doth import discent but every discent which is more generall doth not actually import an opposition So your long sillogisme a priori is but lanke nor doth your reasoning a posteriori thrive thus In those places where the sacred Scriptures are thus prostituted not only to the bare reading but also to the interpretation of every profane and ignorant fellow I still meane when he shall have heard or seen what can be alleadged on all sides these and only these sects have multiplied and do multiply beyond measure Ans If the Scripture be allowed to every ones use for the knowledge of things necessary to salvation it is no prostitution of it Bellarmin as before in his 1. b. c. 1. de Verbo Dei affirms it to be our rule then a rule to all then it is necessary by necessity of precept and by necessity of mean too upon the account of a rule if you speak of a prostitution of it to every ones interpretation according to his own fansy This is not intended by us But what power hath the Church to hinder them of their right If they abuse their liberty it is upon their own perill They wrest the Scripture to their own destruction as St. Peter said of some that they wrested some things in St. Paul's Epistles which are hard to be understood And as Dominion Civill is not grounded in grace speciall so neither is the religious right of Scripture grounded in speciall knowledge And if they be more ignorant they have more need of it 2. The parenthesis you adde to strengthen your argument or to qualifie the state of your question makes nothing for you For if you understand the words I still meane when he shall have heard or seen what can be alleadged on all sides as to strengthen your Argument it surely weakens it For if they heare or see what is alleadged on all sides they are not like to follow their own conceit but what appears to be more reasonable For your argument supposeth that after they have heard or seen all that can be said on all sides yet they have liberty from us to interpret according to their own pleasure which is more unlikely they would do though they had our allowance after they had heard or seen all that could be alleadged on all sides If you intend those words to qualify the state of the question then it seems before they do hear or see what is alleadged on all sides they may not passe any judgement of the point for themselves and if they must first heare or see all that can be alleadged on all sides before they take that sense that is agreeable to plain places of Scripture then surely they must be blind as to this point for when shall they be able probably to know whether they have heard or seen all that can be alleadged on all sides in such a matter This is such a yoke which the Pharisees if we may say so lay upon us which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear But 3. Whereas you say these and only these sects have multiplied do multiply beyond measure it is false on both parts not these always which you must mean for why then did the ancient Fathers exhort the people so much to the study of the Scripture as Cyrill of Jerusalem and S. Chrysostom the former in his Catechism the later in his Comments and also in homilies And then not only there for then you might propose a convenient way to take away all the differences amongst the Jesuites and Dominicans and those that divide from the court of Rome namely by taking away all use of Scripture You see not only by ignorant and profane men there are bred differences where the Bible is in liberty but amongst the learned men also So that not always these nor only these these are sects But 4. The multiplying of sects and beyond measure is not as hath been said the effect of the use thereof because not necessary And doth not your argument follow by consequence only then not by necessity of consequent And therefore is not this a demonstration a posteriori Thus you have argued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us now see how happy you are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in refutation of my answers This we have in the third par Neither do any of your arguments prove this not to be the true cause of heresie and bad life which followeth heresie Ans Here we see you intended a full demonstration from the cause But whereas you say none of my arguments do prove the contrary you may remember that I had no arguments but in way of answer It is not my office to dispute but answer Whereas you say bâ—d life followeth heresy that you meane inseparably do you not If you do not it is inconsequent if you do it is false How many Hereticks have been more strict in their lives then orthodox Christians that they
to you is not bound to so much Fourthly whereas you say They so will make him wise unto salvation and to continue still assured of the doctrine of the Church and never to contradict that Do not you see that you add to Paul in the Predicate for S. Paul saies they are able to make him wise unto salvation and you say so they are able to make him wise to salvation and to continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church and not to contradict the Church who is it that wrests Scripture now Do not you draw it to your own use no you will say it is all one to make us wise unto salvation and to make us continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church and not to contradict the Church Is it then all who have not contradicted the Church are saved none that have contradicted the Church are saved The former you will not say the later you cannot prove Pope Vigilius contradicted the Church in the 5. Gen. Council about the three Chapters was he damned Fifthly you say the Scriptures so understood would make him wise unto salvation and to continue in the doctrine of the Church How do you understand it copulatively or disjunctively Copulatively that the Scriptures and the orall traditions would make him wise unto salvation and to continue in the doctrine of the Church or disjunctively that the Scriptures would make him wise unto salvation and the traditions to continue in the doctrine of the Church If disjunctively then we may be wise unto salvation and yet not continue in the doctrine of the Church to wit by the Scriptures If we cannot have salvation without continuing in the Church then prove your Church to be as infalible to us as the Doctors of the Church were to Timothy until that time you will be thought to beg the question So to end this answer we note here that you take special care of the Church It seems by your stickling about the Church that what S. Austin said in his de Civitate Dei concerning Rome-Heathen is also true by you of Rome-Christian Et major cura unius Romae quam totius Coeli And there is more care had of one Rome than all Heaven You go on Thirdly you say You confess that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may ground our faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered You say yes but I also say that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in Scripture So then it seems you come downe from your former universality that whatsoever we do believe we must believe upon the proposals of the Church as the formal cause and motive thereof and why then do you not allow the people the use of the Bible as in order to those things which are plainly delivered So that by this concession you open the way to contradict your own practice But you would shut it again by saying that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in it Be sure you take heed of this that you do not grant this for why then should all fly to the Church for infalible directions in way of supply well Are they not delivered or not plainly which speak your mind If not delivered then surely not plainly for of that which is not there are no affections as the Rule is but they may be delivered and yet not plainly Come out of the clouds and do not make a noise but lighten us If not delivered think upon the Argument you know well If many things not necessary are plainly delivered in Scripture then much rather all things necessary If delivered and not plainly then plainly not delivered for if they be delivered they are delivered for our use as a Rule of faith and action and how are they a Rule if they be not sufficiently plain for then we must have another Rule for the understanding of this Rule And also think upon the former Argument which proceeds upon your own distinction that the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation but not every one If Timothy then much more others because more is required as you say to a Minister in point of belief than to others But you would prove what you say S. Peter saith that many to their perdition did misunderstand some hard places of S. Paul so that mis-interpretation of hard places may be the cause of perdition Ans First you will excuse us if we note that the danger they were in was not by misunderstanding but by wresting of those places You know the Greek is as before was said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Syriack renders it perverting depraving and so also your Translation of Rhemes depraving This is not so much an intellectual error as a moral fault and the danger is by the later Secondly Here 's but some things hard to be understood in S. Paul's Epistles not all not many and from hence you cannot argue that all things therefore in S. Paul's Epistles and much lesse in the whole Scripture are hard to be understood If you syllogize so you proceed a particulari a dicto secundum quid Thirdly the perverting and depraving doth more immediately depend upon their being unstable than ignorant Therefore cannot you impute that to simple ignorance which at least partly belongs to another cause Fourthly how prove you that those things which were hard to be understood were of those things which are necessary to salvation If you say so it lies upon you to prove it if they were not such then this text is not pertinent Fifthly it is to their own destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then it seems hereby they had the liberty to read those Epistles and why should you therefore hinder the people from the use of Scripture since they run the danger of their own destruction by wresting them And peruse your own Estius upon the place who doth ingenuously note that it is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as referring to the Epistle as some copies he said would have it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referring to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which respects the time of Christs coming although afterwards Estius would extend them to the point of justification by faith Fourthly you object heresie and lewd life to some in whom you say we invested infallibility If I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresie and bad life besides giving all scope to interpret the Scriptures as we judge fit c. unto but to prevent Ans But do you remember what occasion I had to object this to you by way of recrimination you charged us by the judgement of your learned Divines that the free use of the Scripture would be it upon which the peoples manners would grow worse and worse And to this I said how comes it then to passe that some in whom you vested
of you in this dispute you have first said you knew not what and now you know not what to say Tell us where the originall of infalibilitie lies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surely it doth not become infalibilitie to be so reserved To passe this you tell me in your fourth Par. that I lay to your charge the supposing of the question And I am still of that minde For if you say that as things stand we have no other assurance to ground our faith upon but the Church you do plainly suppose that which is mainly in question and so must do until you prove it And I still say unto you as I did that you do not well consider what you say in saying as things stand as if the rule of faith were a Lisbian rule and might alter upon occasions and as if the Scripture must be accommodated to the use of the Church Yes intellectus currit cum praxi And the Scripture is to follow the Church and not the Church the Scripture would you have it so So it seems by what follows for so you answer that though God might have ordained otherwise yet as things stand the Church is the ground of our faith in all points speaking of the last ground on which we must stand to wit not an humane but Divine ground the pillar and ground of truth And what do you say here more than you said before or more than we can say mutatis mutandis Though God could have ordained otherwise that there should have been a standing Councel or a singular person successively infalible to have proposed and determined all things infalibly yet as things stand the Scripture is the ground of our faith in all points necessary speaking of the last ground on which we must stand not a humane but a Divine ground Wherein are we inferiour to you but that we do not put in all points But we put in all points necessarie And what need more And the Church is not yet proved to determine any thing infalibly the Scripture proposeth all things necessary infalibly And me thinks you should if you please think the Scripture a divine ground rather than the Church To take then your own principle The ground of faith must be Divine The Church is not a ground Divine Therefore no ground The Major is your own The assumption is proved thus The Testimonie of men is Humane The Testimonie of the Church is the Testimonie of men Therefore The first proposition in the ordinary capacity of men is plaine For no effect can exceed the cause And the second proposition is as plaine if the men that are of the Church are considered as private men by your own grounds But these men you say being in the capacitie of a Church are inspired by the Holy Ghost so as they cannot erre in any point True if they be assisted with the Holy Ghost Well but how shall I know what a Church is and whether such men be of the Church and whether such men be assisted with the Holy Ghost Yea whether there be an Holy Ghost All these particulars I must be satisfied in before that I can believe by a Divine faith that what the Church proposeth definitively is true A Church cannot be in the nature of it expressed without a profession of that Religion which directs man to his supernaturall end Now this Religion requires a supernaturall revelation as Aquinas disputes it in the begining of his Sums Then this Religion must be revealed being not naturally intelligible either by principles or works of nature Where and how is this Religion revealed you cannot say by the Church for the question is of the Church And so consequently how is it revealed that such are of the Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost or that there is an Holy Ghost Expedite these questions And again consider that S. Austin and other Fathers have spoken freely of discerning the Church by Scripture whe◠in I am informed what Religion is what a Church which the true Church and that there is a Holy Ghost Again I must believe by a divine faith that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth as you say Well but how shal I come by this divine faith God infuseth it you will say well but doth he infuse it immediately as in respect of Scripture So you must say well then cannot you think that he can infuse faith of the Scripture immediately in respect of the Church Answer me is this faith wrought in me by the credibility of the Church or not if not how If so then the Church is naturally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the testimonie of the Church must be resolved into the testimonie of men extra rationem Ecclesiae then is it of itself but humane Therefore must you come to this that the Testimonie of the Church is infallible by Athoritie of Scripture Well then if so then the Church is not the last ground on which we must stand Nor yet is it the first ground as we take it for a Divine ground which you mean for it is not Divine but by the word of God yea if the Church be the last ground on which we must stand then why do you prove the Authority of the Church by the Authority of Scripture And if you say that you also prove the Scripture to be the word of God by the Church yet not as the last ground but the Church is resolved into the Authoritie of Scripture as the last ground for if the Church hath no being as such but by Scripture in the substance of it then the Church must be ultimately grounded in Scripture for that which is primum in generatione is ultimum in resolutione So a primo ad ultimum the Scripture is the ground of faith And so this will be contrary to what follows in your last that we do not first believe the Church for the Scripture If you speak of a generall motive to believe the Scripture so we may begin with the Church upon the account of credible men as towards humane faith but if you speak of belief as Divine so we cannot first begin with the Church because we must first be assured of the Church by the word of God under the formalitie of Divine faith the word of God must be first in genere credibilium unlesse there were a resultance of a Church out of naturall principles which is not to be said And in your following words you intimate as much as if we might first admit the Scripture to be the word of God and then prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church If we may admit the Scriptures for Gods word first then first the Scriptures may be believed to be the word of God without the authority of the Church which is contrary to what you have said formerly Then secondly the Scripture must be the last ground of faith because as before that which is first in generation is last in resolution And
then thirdly Why do you dispute with us concerning the Authority of Scriptures by the Church since we have admitted the Scriptures for the word of God And therefore should you not urge us to the acknowledgement of Scriptures by the Authoritie of the Church but wholly to the acknowledgement of the Church by the Authority of the Scriptures Paragr 5. In the fifth Par. you say you charge me with abating from my first proposition in which I said Divine faith in all things was caused by the proposall of the Church because now I say that when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture Ans And I cannot yet bate you an ace of my charge For your termes are of a believing indefinitely upon proposall of the Church as if 't were the immediate formall cause of all faith and so severall of your Arguments would prove that the Scripture is not at all our rule but the Church And this your first paper made to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore if you had clearly intended the dispute of this point whether we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the Authoritie of the Church and so consequently or causally all to be believed for the Church you should have made this the state of the main question But now you say when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture And do you not go lesse now Do but compare the quantities of your assertions before all things to be believed upon and for the proposall of the Church now some things may be believed for the Scripture which are plainly contained in it And the Church and the Scripture are in our case opposed so then if first all is to be believed by the Authoritie of the Church and now some things clearly contained may be believed upon Scripture then do you not onely abate but contradict your self in effect for it will come to this all is to be believed upon the proposal of the Church somwhat may be believed not upon the proposal of the Church but of Scripture For when we are assured you say that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are plainly contained in Scripture then we are to believe it upon the account of the word of God And your Church can have no higher Authoritie surely than God's word for it Therefore if you say we are to believe what is plainly contained in Scripture when we are assured by the Church that it is the word of God for the authoritie of the Church then I pray tell me why we should believe the Church if not for the word of God Again to consider these words of yours if we must be assured by infalible Authority of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before we can believe what is plainly contained therein then either one of us must yeild upon the case of the infalibilitie of the Church or else nothing plainly contained in Scripture can be by your opinion believed But you think that some things are plainly set down in Scripture though elsewhere you would conclude as if all things in Scripture were obscure and so you now also abate in this and herein we both agree and we think the Church's Authority is not infalible wherein we differ from you Now which think you in reason should yeild you or we One would think you should yeild rather since we can prove that whatsoever is contained in Scripture is to be believed without the Authoritie of the Church and you cannot prove the Authority of the Church to be plainly contained in Scripture yea must yet believe upon your principles the infalible Authority of the Church before you can believe it though plainly contained in Scripture because you must first be assured by the infalible Authoritie of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before you do believe what is contained in Scripture And again thirdly we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God why may not we then have leave to believe things plainly contained in Scripture Certa sunt in paucis as Tertullian saith We say certain necessary truths are not so many Why are not we then well grounded in Religion surely in your account because we do not go to divine faith by your infalible Church Even as the death of Remus it was ordained by Romulus that whosoever went over the trench at the building of Rome any other than the ordinary way should be put to death so Zâ—n 2. An. because we do not go the ordinarie Roman way to the building of us in our most holy faith we must die for ever As if our faith were not true Divine faith because it is not implicit by the Church Which is as much as to say the obedience of faith is not good because it is not blind And this is as much as to say we do not see because we do not see And therefore fourthly since as hath been shewed the authority of the Church is resolved into Scripture and since you have confessed that we may admit the Scriptures to be the word of God and yet may need to be assured of the Authoritie of the Church your apologie for your self in this paragraph must needs be insufficient In the sixth Par. You begin with taking notice of my character of my self to be one of the slender sons of the Church of England whether so or whether he hath shewed that Treatise of mine to be no demonstration Let the indefferent reader after the due pondering the force of all Arguments determine Sir I dare not alter my small opinion of my self And therefore the consideration of such matters should have dropped from a judicious head into a learned pen. And if your demonstration as you call it be indeed such as doth merit the terme you have proved me to be no better than my word And if I prove it to be no demonstration I do not yet falsifie what I said of my self For I shall impute the cause of it to our cause the weakest hand may defend our cause the strongest cannot defend yours To passe this you go on Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you adde the Scripture is infalible but the Church is not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture Ans But you leave out the scope of this Argumentation and the formalitie of the conclusion You spake of as clear a Demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter I told you it was hard to say who does optimum quod sic Well but then I wished you to put it to the test and to try the debate of it by this rule of wisdome and
conscience tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum hold that which is certain leave that which is uncertain it is certain that the Scripture is infalible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is infalible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the rule and ground and cause of faith So I in my last But you leave out all notice of my disputing this with you in point of wisdome and cut off your own confession and would have me to make this a Demonstration absolutely in point of truth You do wisely to shuffle it off since you cannot well bear the dint of it in the way of discourse ad hominem And yet also is it necessarily certain that if our grounds be more certain then your's are not because they are contradictorie But you making it to be in my account an absolute Demonstration answer first the Scripture connot be proved to be the word of God without the Church be infalible as I shall shew ch 8. But this was not now the particular question I disputed upon your own concession And therefore this is nothing to my Argument Apply your answers to my proceeding with you upon your account of prudence And then secondly Though it be not a Demonstration that the Scripture is infalible the Church not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture yet it concludes upon advantage for though the Church were infalible in the testimony of the Scripture to be the word of God yet the Scripture were to be the immediate ground of all necessary points Thirdly Neither doth it contradict my assertions that the Church is not the rule and cause of faith though it were infalible in this Testimony for if it were infalible in this yet would it not follow it should be infalible in all as I have told you and you have not answered me yet And then Fourthly The Scripture may appeare to be the word of God though the Church be not infalible as will be shewed in answer to you And therefore all you say upon this hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie Article of our faith that all the Scripture is the word of God and therefore upon her Authority I believe the Scripture to be most infalible yet because I ground this belief upon her Authoritie her Authoritie is yet the last ground of faith I say all this hath no sound discourse and will come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even into nothing upon the two last answers first because if from hence I believe the Scriptures to be the word of God yet am I not therefore ex vi consequentiae bound to hold the Church the last ground of faith in all things for it plainly concludes a dicto secundum quid We can hold that the Generall Councell may be infalible in points necessary though not in all points whatsoever although you must hold infalibilitie in all or none because you say all is delivered by the Church upon her Authority equally without respect to the matter And then secondly upon the last answer which was the fourth we shall cashiere all that is said here for that it will appear that the Scripture is the word of God without the Churches Authoritie for the corroboration of the Title And so there needs not the infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weighty Article of faith that all the Scripture is the word of God â—um 7. And whereas in your next number you promise such souls as have forsaken an infalible Church an happy eternity upon this ground that those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture I pray God their Soules come not to be required at your hands Ans I am beholding to my Adversary for his good wishes that I may not answer for other mens souls But if he takes here forsaken formally and an infalible Church really so not accounted only to be so by him I deny it that we have so forsaken such a Church for neither is it infalible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides they have rather forsaken us and the whole Church in pretending infalibilitie to themselves and Domination over all that will be true Christians No particular Church can be bound to another more than as it doth comply with the Catholick Church now then if any do leave the Catholick as the Roman hath done we cannot join with them wherein they leave the Catholick either in point of faith or discipline If we are to give respect to a particular Church as an actuall part of the whole then where it separates we must follow the whole A turpis est omnis pars universo suo non congruens And yet they first made the actuall Schism when the Popes Bull prohibited communion with us So then take forsaken rightly and an infalible Church really we deny the charge Take them otherwise we denie the consequence of danger But my Adversarie would prove our ground to be groundless first because no Soul can have infalible assurance of the Scriptures being the true word of God if the Church be not infalible c. Whereof you promise more Num. 20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Ans This we have had so often without proof that it is to no purpose to say any thing to words for Arguments Scaurus negat as Alphonsus de Castro opposeth his adversary Yea also you refer me here for proof in the third ch Your conclusion is here your proof there so far is your conclusion from proof Premisses were wont to be before the Conclusion but your opinion is already shewed vaine as touching the ground of your certainty and your vanity of my opinion I shall refute when you shew it And so you serve me for the second respect wherein you say my ground is groundlesse for you say it is manifestly false that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture as you shew ch 3. Your conclusion here that it is manifestly salse c. I believe will be too large for your Arguments as it is now too soon We follow your order as having nothing to do untill you begin In your eighth Par. You say I find nothing in the next Par. which I have not here answered Onely you still force me to say again I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre what proceedeth from this Authority we professe to proceed from the Authority of the Church When the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent You say you find nothing in it which here you have not answered And what can I finde here but that you say Only you force me to say again Here is some ingenuitie that you seem not to love to swell your papers with repetitions Therefore prove it once say it no more Quid
is not this way Suppose God had promised the Kingdome of France a Monarchy Ergo the Kingdome of France say you is no Monarchy The true consequence is the Kingdome of France is this Monarchy Ans I am not displeased with mine own Argument if there can be no more said against it than is here I know no difference betwixt a King and a Monarch sufficient to ground a distinction and in the new Testament the greek word which signifies a King is usually applied to the expressing of Emperors And therefore if God had promised the Kingdom of France a Monarchy he should have promised it it self And so if God had promised the Church to be this way he should have promised it it self I had thought that as the object of the thing in humane speculation is before the act speculative so the object of person had been considered before acts practick otherwise the object of the person and the object of the thing do not differ Thus if the promise of this way to the Church be the promise of the Church its being this way then the terminus rei and the terminus personae is all one Therefore must this way be distinguished from the Church otherwise the Church hath nothing promised And how can this way be predicated of the Church in such a proposition the Church is this way when according to your principles the Church must have its existence by this way before it can be this way And so must have its being before its cause which amounts to a contradiction that it should be and not be for it must be before it is Yea if the Church is to be supposed before it be the way and yet is to have its consistence by this way this is to make that which is to be which also makes that which is not to be because it must not be before it be Yet he goes on The Church is this way which God promised it should be But to whom did he promise it To singulars before they are aggregated in the unity of a Church Then the singulars yet must be a Church before they be a Church because this way was promised you say to the Church If the diffused Church be the object of the promise to whom it is made then again how were the Christians without faith Or how had they faith without a Representative which is the way promised as he supposeth Yet again and it is so by the sure guidance of him who is the way and is with his Church ruling it until the consummation of the world And so Christ is regula regulans and the Church regula regulata So thâ—n at length my Adversary is come to my distinction onely he will not apply it as I did I said the Scripture is regula regulans the Church is regula regulata he saies now that Christ is regula regulans the Church is regula regulata So that in part he is come over to us in that he says the Church is the rule ruled and he or any other could hardly overcome us in the other that Christ should be the rule ruling and not by the Scripture Christ doth not now rule us immediately but by the Spirit and therefore is he said to be the Spirit of Christ neither doth the Spirit rule us immediately but by the word which the Spirit of Christ did inspire the Pen-men of Scripture in to this purpose So it remains that the Scripture is the word of Christ by his Spirit And by this word which was first delivered by his Spirit is Christ the way He is the way of merit by his death He is the way of example by his life He is the way of precept and direction by his word If he divides the word from the Spirit he makes it not the word of God if he divides the Spirit from the word so that the Spirit should direct beside the word he runs into Enthusiasmes The Spirit hath it selfe to the word as the Dictator the Apostles have themselves and the Prophets to the word as the Pen-men The word hath it self to us as the rule which from God through Christ by his Spirit in the Pen-men of Scripture is to direct us unto our Supernaturall end Therefore saith St. Paul let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisedome Colos 3.16 To conclude then this Answer since Christ is now confessed to be the rule ruling he is the rule ruling either by his Church or by his word If by his Church as my Adversary how is this Church to be ruled since this is the rule ruled By his Spirit they will say well but how In a Councell they will say confirmed by the Pope But for the first three hundred yeares their was no Councill nor Pope in their sence for more How then Then by his Spirit causally in the word according to which the Arch-Bishop of Collen resolved to reform his Church for which he was cited before the Emperour and excomunicated afterwards by the Pope in the yeare 1546. But being ruled by him there is not the least danger that it will swerve from the word of God and you may well follow such a Guide with blinde obedience So my Antagonist goes on upon the Church Ans To this passage much may be said First that the former words are wisely put together si non caste tamen caute For there is a reserve of sense in which they are true namely in sensu composito whilst it is ruled by Christ there is not the least danger of swerving from the word of God but it is yet to be proved that it will always be ruled by Christ Make this sure and we have done But if it had always been ruled by Christ it would not have violated his institution of Communion under both kinds Put this then into a forme of discourse that which is ruled by Christ doth not swerve from his word the Church of Rome is ruled by Christ therefore and we limit the major so far as it is ruled by Christ it doth not swerve from the word it is not true that it never swerves unlesse it be true that it is always ruled by Christ but then we deny the Assumption for it is not always ruled by Christ 2. We note here that the rule Christ rules us by is his word for so it is said here being ruled by Christ it will not swerve from his word So then by his own words Christ's adequate rule is his word otherwise we might be ruled by him and yet swerve from his word And also consequently if we follow his word we follow him And those that do not follow his word do not follow him Thirdly we must differ with him upon the point of blinde obedience therefore whereas he saies you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedience we say absolutely blind obedience is not rationall it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any sense and then we say
we see with our eyes not onely fools but also most learned men to erre grossely and to follow most contradictorie opinions whilst they professe from their hearts to follow Scripture as near as they can Ans This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First because men do erre therefore is not that the way The errour is by them because they go from the way not by the way because they go in it It concludes as much as if the way to Rome were not the way because some men do not finde it Secondly they professe from their hearts as they say to follow Scripture as near â—s they can but do they from their hearts professe it Thirdly if most learned men do erre grossely and follow most contradictorie opinions c. it seems then some most learned men think this is the way Fourthly if they follow most contradictorie opinions and yet follow Scripture the fault must be in them for you dare not say there is any contradiction in Scripture Fifthly they may be in way of Salvation though some do erre in the sense of Scripture as it is drawn down in application to some points of question Sixthly there should have been considered here a possibilitie of recrimination with more advantage against the Adversary For how many of them do erre in following the Church and are more prone to erre because the Church is more variable and their traditions which they say are part of the rule are not written In particular how many of them passionately differ from one another about the subject of Ecclesiastick power about temporall power whether the Pope hath any then whether direct or indirect How many of them hotly maintained contrary opinions in the Council of Trent And yet I hope they followed the Church For if they held Scripture the rule they were Adversaries to my Adversary Seventhly Therefore since men may finde your way and yet erre by it and not finde Scripture and yet erre by it for the Church may for ought is proved teach errour the Scripture not let fools go that way and most learned men goe the way of Scripture My Argument then is yet good That way which the Church goes we must go And this they will not deny But the Church goes the way of Scripture and this they cannot deny Nor is there any direct Answer made thereunto Therefore Neither is my fourth Answer answered Therefore may we conclude contradictorily to his conclusion of this number the visible Church is not this Judge by submission to the judgement whereof we are secured from all errour Num. 3. S. 2. Whence what you say against my third Number is easily answered For all Religions agreeing that there must be one Judge of all controversies which either be or may be in Religion they must all give infallibilitie to their Judge Ans And from what was said before all that you reply to my answer is easily answered for no Religion but yours doth say that there must be a formall visible Judge of all controversies infallible And as for us we say there is no need of such a Judge and our principles do conclude negatively to such a Judge For whereas we say God's written word hath plainly set down all things necessary to salvation as you do relate it we also by consequence inferre that there is no need of controversie in things necessary because the Scripture hath plainly determined those points which are necessary already which how true it is we shall shew in answer to your third Chapter All other Sectaries agreeing with you in that point I understand not how you could say that none but we hold an infallible Judge Ans If you include us here amongst the Sectaries as you seem to do we deny the charge And we say we are no more Sectaries than the Catholick was before Papacie had head or foot in the world We say as he my name is Christian my sir-name is Catholick We have made no such change of Doctrine as to be accounted Hereticks as you call us nor of Discipline as to be accounted Schismaticks but we should not appear so innocent unlesse Romans should first accuse us And secondly there are no Sectaries but you that do maintain the contrary unlesse they be Anabaptists and Enthusiasts which make themselves infallible Judges as your single Church makes it self an infallible Judge For Thirdly those who hold the Scripture to set down plainly all things necessary are not in this Sectaries as seems to be intimated in the former words Nor fourthly by holding the Scripture to have plainly set down things necessary do they inferre that there is a necessity of an infallible Judge to decide all controversies which may spring up For their opinion includes the contrary And therefore upon the whole matter the former words are not so rationally delivered And what he saies afterwards that without an infallible Guide every man might proceed as if your faith were fallible and so give an infallible assent to nothing is indeed gratis dictum For if this discourse be resolved as it must be into this proposition Without an infallible Guide our faith is fallible and we can give infallible assent to nothing it will appear to be salse because the proposition is false as it is taken universally For though in points of question I cannot give an assent infallibly to a Judge unlesse I do give an assent infallible to this Judge's being infallible yet we hope we may give an infallible assent to those things which are plain in Scripture and not questioned Yea secondly I may give an infallible assent to that which is in question without an infallible Judge external because by his agitation of it I may see it plainly resolved into the sense of Scripture which indeed is the formall rationall end of all Councils that by the conference of learned men the meaning of Scripture as to the case may be cleared The former discourse therefore is plainly fallacious a dicto secundum quid or a particulari as if because we cannot have an infallible faith of things disputed without an infallible Judge we could have no faith in any thing but fallible Yea it is false in those particulars debated for we may have a faith infallible of them by Scripture though the Judge ministeriall be not infallible The faith objective is infallible in the Scripture and the faith may he infallible subjective by the rule of Scripture and yet the Judge fallible because we may make use of the Fathers of the Church as Consuls not as Dictators In the next words he would vindicate himself from saying that without such a Judge we should be free to follow without any fault our private Judgement in holding what we will as you insinuate But I said otherwise every man might be free to believe what he judged best and so we should have as many Religions as there be private and different judgements c. Ans He doth me wrong in saying that I
put in such words as I knew how to answer and leaved out his true words I altered no words but expounded him in them as I had reason For if every one might be left free without such a Judge to what he judged best this freedome would be simple or morall If simple then it would be without a fault and if morall it would be without a fault but now he denies that he meant a morall freedome Yet is it best for him to understand such a freedome according to his principles for if we have not a morall freedome without a fault to believe what we judge best then have we lesse reason of giving undisputed assent to an externall Judge since we are awed and commanded under peril of a fault to take heed what we do believe And therefore cannot we believe this Judge with blind obedience because it seems now we may not believe what we will but we must see good reason for what we do believe And good reason it is that good reason should exclude blind obedience And indeed his consequence is false in terminis for we have not a simple freedome to believe what we will as I said because the understanding naturally assents to truth apparent But this he takes no notice of as if I had said no such thing How much of my words he takes away privatively which must inferre a variation of my sense may be gathered by compare of my copy with his rehersall and it appears that negatively he hath taken away a great part of my words for he saies to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so his argument is null and his vindication nullified Onely I must also note that he did not well weigh his own consequence if every man were left free to hold what he judged best we should have as many Religions as private judgements for in principles of Religion we are not like to differ if we believe the Scripture and particular Controversies which you direct your discourse to if you speak ad idem if not you are more to be blamed do not make different Religions because then you must have different Religions amongst your selves In the begining of this number my Adversary would faine take me tripping or enterfearing upon my own words by a consequence Num. 4. because as he thinks I take away all meanes of regulating our judgement and yet say we should not follow our own judgement of discretion without meanes of regulating our judgement Ans His reason may well be put into this forme he that taketh away all infallible means takes away all means able to produce an infallible assent but I take away all infallible means Then I deny his assumption I do not deny all infallible meanes I do not deny all meanes because I deny some to be infallible and I do not deny all infallible means because I deny some that he thinks infallible in both he would impose upon me the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a particulari All means are not infallible and there may be and is other infallible meanes besides those which he supposeth and I deny The Scripture is an infallible mean to hold to this I deny the infallibilitie of Councils And then again secondly I deny a necessity of infallible assent to all points of question either part of the contradiction may consist with salvation For corroboration of his opinion about the infallibilitie of Councils he brings in afterward St. Gregory the Great 's saying I do professe my self to reverence the first four Councils as I reverence the four books of the Gospell And in like manner I do receive the fifth Council whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anathema Ans First we do not think the judgement of St. Gregory to be greater than the judgement of the four Councils if we do not think them infallible we have no cause or reason to be urged with one Gregory Secondly we also reverence the learning of that Gregory as he reverenceth the books of the Gospell if the as be taken in similitude not proportion in the quality not equality Thirdly if the opinion of St. Gregory should prevaile with me why doth not the Authority of the Fathers whom I produced for our cause and the answers I gave to his Authorities before prevaile with him Testem quem quis inducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se Fourthly let us marke his own words And I also receive the fifth Councill in like manner Now the fifth Council was that of Constantinople wherein Vigilius was condemned in his defence of the three Chapters And the Council proceeded without his consent yea and against his mind So that if St. Gregory's authoritie were authentick the cause were spoiled for so infallibilitie should not be stated in a Council with the Popes confirmation Fifthly oppose and confront Gregory with Gregory Nazianzen with the Roman and which of them shall we believe for Councils Neither doth the whole machin of our Religion tople and tumble to the ground upon my former principle as he imagined though he would presse me more strongly to shew upon what Authoritie I take Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God This by the way should not have been brought into question with us since we give more reverence to the Scriptures than they do and therefore are like to have a firmer faith in it to be the word of God than they The main design of my Adversary at first I suppose was to debate the faith of particular points the Scripture being supposed to be the word of God although not supposed by him to be the onely rule But therefore let me returne his own words changing the tables that the whole machin of his Religion doth tople and tumble to the ground upon his ground by pressing him to shew by what authority he takes Scripture by an infallible assent to be the word of God before he hath proved the infallibilitie of the Church His reason follows because there cannot be a more groundless ground upon which you by rejecting the infallible authority of the Church are forced to build your whole religion to wit that you by meer reading of Scripture can by its light as you discover the sun by its light discover it so manifestly to be the undoubted word of God that this discovery sufficeth to ground your infallible assent to that verity Ans First he is not surely right in this that I am forced by rejecting his way of believing Scripture to this way If he be then I am right in the choice of my principle upon my refusal of his but Mr. Chillingworth whom he blames me for differing from in this point does find as it may seem and as he himself professeth a middle way of grounding faith in the Scripture to be the word of God namely by the authoritie of universall Tradition which as any can distinguish from this way so he doth distinguish from the Pontifician
way as is known but this we shall have fuller occasion to speake of hereafter Secondly whereas he saies that I say by meer reading of Scripture c. he supposeth that which is not so For I do not deny the use of other meanes to further us towards our assent intrinsecall arguments from Scripture extrinsecall of the Church but that which privately we resolve our faith of Scripture to be the word of God in is the autopistie of Scripture which God by faith infused shews unto us And by Catarinus his reasoning in the Trent Council about subjective certitude of grace private faith is not inferior to the Catholick faith in point of certaintie but onely in universalitie Thirdly the Church according to my Adversary hath its power of binding to faith by a Generall Council with the Popes confirmation of the Decrees then let us know by what Council all the parts of Scripture were confirmed by a Generall Council with the Popes consent for the first six hundred years somewhat might be put in as towards the use of some parts of the Apocryphall books but it doth not appear that they were canonized as to faith nor any of the Canonicall books declared by them as quo ad nos authentick For they were wont to meddle with little but emergent questions whereas of those parts of Scripture which were generally received there was no question whether they were the word of God And being not received by the authoritie of a Council establishing them what ground have those who differ from us to receive them since they say the infallible Authoritie is in the Church Representative with the Popes confirmation He goes on And it must be a far surer discoverie than that by which we discover the Sun by his light for this discovery can onely ground a naturall certaintie the other must ground a supernaturall not certainty but infallibilitie Ans The supernaturall habit of faith hath it felf more to intelligence than to science Intelligence is known to be that naturall habit whereby the understanding is disposed to assent to the truth of principles when the terms of those principles are known And faith doth beare more proportion to this as being the supernaturall habit in regard of cause whereby we are disposed to believe supernaturall verities whereof the first is by our opinion that the Scripture is the word of God taking the Scripture materially Now as the principles naturall are seen through their own light by the naturall habit of intelligence so are the supernatural principles seen through their own light by the supernaturall habit of faith And as certainly as I see the Sun by its light with mine eye so certainly do I see the truth of naturall principles by the naturall habit of intelligence and as certainly as I see the veritie of naturall principles by intelligence so do I see supernaturall verities by the supernaturall habit of faith yet not so evidently as I see the Sun by its light or naturall principles through their light But it seems by my Adversary that this will not serve for he urgeth not onely for a certainty but infallibilitie To this we answer first Take certaintie properly and I think there is no fundamentum in re for this distinction It may be because we are wont to use the term of infallibilitie to points of faith we think that whatsoever is certain is not infallible and it is true in regard of the manner or meane of certaintie so that whatsoever is certain is not infallible for so certaintie seems to be more generall but certainly whatsoever is to us certaine is also infallible as we take it in a generall sense But secondly if there be any degree of infallibilitie above certaintie we have it by this way of Divine faith infused by the Spirit of God because we are most sure of this principle that God cannot deceive nor be deceived therefore what we take upon his word we are most certain of and more than by our own discourse and reason for that is in the nature of it more imperfect Thirdly this is not so wisely considered to straine our faith to the highest peg of utmost infallibilitie as they determine the ground of it namely the Authoritie of the Church because the Authoritie of it as it is contradistinguished to the Spirit and word is but humane and as it is resolved into the word by the Spirit so it comes into a coincidence with us Fourthly whereas he sometimes upbraided us with an essentiall defect of faith because we take it not by their way of the Church it appeares yet that some of our Church have in case of martyrdome held the faith of Scripture and of points taken from thence as infallibly as they have held Scripture upon tenure of the Church And it seems ours did not hold the Scripture or the points upon the authoritie of the Church for they differed from the Ponteficians unto the death about the Church and about points of Doctrine which the Papist urged they denied notwithstanding they were Doctrines of their Church Now according to the Pontifician argument if they had received the Scripture by the Authoritie of the Church they must upon the same reason have received every Doctrine proposed by the Church And therefore it seems they had a faith of Scripture infallible without the Roman infallibilitie Secondly the Spirit of God speaking in the Church is to them the efficient of faith But the Spirit of God speaks also in the Scripture If not how do they prove that the Spirit of God speakes in the Church if it does then may we believe him at first word and immediately as to the Church As to what he saith secondly that he hath shewed in his last chap. second Num. that a review of the definitions of a Council untill they be resolved into the rule of Scripture doth open a wide gap to heresie I need say no more than what hath been said in answer thereunto His meer saying so doth not surely make it so nor is it probable for it doth not open a gap to heresie materiall because Scripture is the rule of truth nor yet to heresie formall because it may be done without opposition to the Councils For simple dissent doth not include formall opposition But yet further he saith And for your importance of the matter I will here further declare in an example which hereafter will stand me in much use Let us take an Arrian Cobler to this man This your Doctrine giveth the finall review of the Council of Nice Ans Yes I must interpose in the severall passages of his storie of the case it doth but how It doth not give a review by way of authoritie to others but he is to take his own libertie for his own satisfaction in point of faith Otherwise he believes he knows not what and so in proportion he comes under the censure of Christ upon the Samaritan woman in the 4. of St. John the 22. Ye
worship ye know not what If the woman was not to be ruled by the judgement of the Samaritans why is a Cobler to be ruled by the authoritie of others since simply the authoritie of the Samaritans was as good as the authoritie of others and therefore our faith must be resolved into some higher ground than the authoritie of men He goes on in his case And you give him leave after he hath perused the definitions of this Council defining God the Son to be of the self same individuall substance with his Father to examine them untill he find them resolved into the infallible rule of Scripture Ans Yes we say he may take his own liberty to do so But also we say he ought to conferre with those who are learned that he may more easily finde the sense of Scripture the advice he takes from others doth not determine his assent but disposeth it It doth point him to it but he must see it with his own sight He doth examine them and chiefly how they doe agree with that text St. John the 10. chap. 30. verse I and my Father are one on which text you afterwards confesse the infallibilitie of this definition to be chiefly grounded Ans So did St. Athanasius professe as I told him in my last rejoinder and he doth not say any thing in deniall But as to the point as being clear in Scripture there are other texts plain enough as in the first Epistle of St. John the fifth chap. the twentieth verse in his son Jesus Christ this is the true God Indeed the whole verse is for our purpose And we know that the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding that we should know him that is true And we are in him that is true in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God He hath given us a mind that we should know Here is faith infused whereby we know him and therefore is not this faith an effect of the authoritie of the Church And this son is here said to be the true God not onely God nuncupatively as the Arrians and Socinians but the true God So Bartholomeus Petrus who makes the Supplement to Estius's Comment upon the Epistles and subjects all to the holy Roman Church Et nihil ominus etiam Filius ab Apostolo verbis expressis nominatur verus Deus parte hujus versus quarta quae sequitur hic est verus Deus So he And notwithstanding also the Son is named by the Apostle in expresse words the true God in the fourth part of this verse this is the true God Now in the examen of the conformitie of this definition with this text the Arrian Cobler by his poor understanding is easily able to see that which a wiser man would yet see sooner that he is put upon a necessitie to inquire how God the Son and his Father are one whether it be by affection onely as Arrians hold or one in the self same individuall Substance as the Council defineth Well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then This is no other than that which stands with our duty of obedience to that precept in the first Ep. to the Thes 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good And secondly were we to rest in the definition of Councils yet should we be put upon inquiry into the sense of their words which would make a trouble and a difference as the words of the Trent Council did to Soto and Viga And therefore if he could prejudice our cause with perplexities of ambiguities neither are they certain by their own Councils which sense to stand to since these learned men so eagerly combated upon different senses of the words of the Council upon the Decrees about Free-will and Predestination and though they had their interesse in the Council for learning and estimation yet it seems did not know the onely sense and true scope of the Synod as is said of them in the History of the Trent Council p. 216. My Adversary goes on And inquiring this he cals to mind that other text John the 17.21 Where Christ prayeth all his Disciples may be one thing as thou Father in me and I in thee So then let him proceed with the caution of this rule res non est subject a sermoni sed sermo rei The thing is not serviceable to the speech but the speech to the thing Here will the Cobler say because he hath been often instructed by his own Doctors Christ who said I and my Father are one thing demandeth that his Disciples may be one thing as he and his Father are one thing but he doth not demand that his Disciples may be all one thing in the self same individuall substance therefore he concludes Christ is not one thing in the self same individuall substance with his Father but one thing in affection onely as his Disciples might come to be one thing Ans But this Cobler if he had more mind to finde truth in Scripture than his own opinion might goe on and see that the Jews who were like to understand the words of Christ as observing what was said by him to them understood Christ not to speak that they were one by way of affection For because of this speech they took up stones to cast at him because he being a man made himself God as it is in the 33 ver of the 10. ch of St. John Which interpretation of his words our Saviour did not in the following verses deny although he seemed to wave that sense and yet also in effect brought it in by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 38 ver Secondly although if there had been no other text concerning Christ's Divinity there would not have been so clear a conclusion from the text of the Divinity of Christ yet if we compare it with other passages of the Scriptures we may well believe that sense and also if the text doth not afford that sense how shall we believe a Council when the Councill of Nice as Athanasius said urged this text thrice against the Arrians And therefore this exception against the sufficient clearnesse of Scripture in this point must be withdrawn or else they must condemne themselves because the Council of Nice determined the point not by their authority but by the text And therefore cannot the Cobler say as my Adversary prompts him false therefore is this definition of the Council which cannot be resolved into the infallible word of God in which all things necessary to Salvation as this point is are plainly set down as this place is not My Adversary first might have spoken more moderately not false is it therefore which the Council hath defined but not necessary because the sense of the words may be such when they are spoken betwixt God or him and his Disciples therefore they are such between his Father and him this is no rationall inference Duo cum idem dicunt non est idem When
besides how many may dissemble what they see Who so blinde as he that will not see If the Chinites say they onely themselves see with both eyes those of Europe with one eye and the rest of the world with neither surely those of Europe who will not see are blinde of both eyes The Council of Trent according to them an Oecumenicall Council if they could see better things not cleare why did they not in all points declare first what was to be held and then what was to be anathametized And if they were more like to see what is cleare how came they to abandon the use of the cup Nay how came they to establish a transubstantiation seing our Saviour after consecration said plainly St. Mark the 14. the 25. I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine Was his blood the fruit of the Vine But sixthly to make use of his disjunction places are either cleare or not namely places of Scripture if not cleare no absosolute necessity of a generall Council so as no salvation to be had without clearing the difficulty if clear what need then of a Council we may be saved without some knowledge we cannot believe without infallibility Seventhly let them reconcile this necessity of a Council to the sayings of Paul the fourth who said he had absolute authority that for himself he had no need of instruction because he knew Christ did command that he had no need of a Council for he himself was above all that he could remedie all inconveniences by his own authority as is said of him in the History of Trent the fifth book And therefore my Adversary or the Pope is out All he saies here also for Councils makes no more than a morall assurance which how much it is lesse than the certainty of faith Mr. Knot will tell Indeed he says Again I may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error as I shall shew chap. 4. Yes surely if this could be proved there were no more to be said this principle will beat down to the ground all opposition which an humble soule can make We confesse it when it is proved But surely this is as much in question as any thing else Untill the supposition be grown into a proof we have then yet but prudentiall Arguments to faith And yet we say secondly if he would have been so wise as to have stated it with a judicious moderation thus that we may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error namely as to destroy the foundation that might have been better endured but he hath granted that this will not serve his purpose as Mr. Knot notes he must have the Church secure from any error These Catholicks as they call themselves cannot speake under the forme of universality which is more easily contradicted And we suspend our assent untill the demonstration comes We may not nor ought to know this We ought not for we cannot We cannot but by Scripture For if they say we may know it by the Church it is the question Neither doth he prove our opposition of Councils in their most fundamentall ground upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to sit as Judges c. Num. 8. For first it doth not appeare that all Councils have supposed themselves to sit as Judges with full commission to determine securely all controversies if the terme security be taken securely from all error And if they have not so defined it that they do so sit as Judges or sit as Judges so how shall we according to my Adversaries principles believe it since we are to fetch all truth from the Church in a Council And secondly if all Councils did establish it a Principle we yet expect a reason hereof since neither Pope nor Council have absolute authority nor both to together to bind our belief Yea thirdly the Council of Nice did sit upon as good ground as any other Council but the Council of Nice did examine all things by Scripture so in the History of the Nicene Council prefixed in a Vatican Edition it is said Rebus itaque in utriusque partem jactatis et ad certam Divinarum Scripturarum normam perpensis communi omnium suffragio Arrius et Eusebius damnantur Things being discussed on both sides and weighed and examined according to the certain rule of Divine Scriptures by common consent Arrius and Eusebius are condemned Therefore are not we to look for a Dictatorian sentence but a rationall determination out of Scripture and if we finde this this doth oblige all Christians to conforme to their definitions But fourthly we deny that we are so obliged by such censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven We are not obliged by them neither in themselves nor because they were so held nay also we deny that they were so held to be ratified in Heaven unlesse with this limitation clave non errante Yea again these do not oblige us to conforme our judgement their power respects the outward act Yea again if so Honorius was rightly condemned in the sixth Generall Council therefore was an Heretick yea and Pope Vigelius was an errant Heretick for defending the three chap. against the fifth Councill And the Romanists are bound to think the Condemnation just or the Council to be null And yet that Council thought it self sufficient in authority without and against the Pope and therefore they all differed from my Adversary who saies the Council does not bind without the Popes confirmation He saies further others will tell you divers other opinions you have with Councils But if he would have had me answer for my self he must have told me the particulars Generalia non pungunt and they make no action To distinguish infallibility from their authority is no opposition untill infallibility be infallibly made good And even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils when you charge them with speaking contradictions Ans First credâ—t may be given in sensu diviso to those that may possibly speake contradictions if we meane by credit a morall respect of humane faith but if he meanes credit of faith Divine I then grant it that such credit is not to be given to them which may speake contradictions for how are they then infallible as they must be by my Adversary if they ground faith As was said of the Milisians Non sunt stulti sed possunt stulta facere they are not fools and yet can do foolish things so a Council may be wise and yet may speake foolish things and I may give some credit to them in generall for their wisedome though it be possible for them to say that which includes a contradiction Secondly I may charge Councils with contradictions to one another though not to themselves For
particularly in what points we have divided from all Churches Indeed it is the safest way not to come to particulars for fear of discovery In generalibus latet totâ—s But let us come up closely to him Either the Fathers of the Primitive Church are on my Adversary's side in the points of difference or our's or have not expressed themselves sufficiently on either part but the Fathers of the Primitive times are not on my Adversary's side For there was none of those points which we have named held by them and my Adversary did know that some of ours have confronted Campion's challenge about the Fathers with another challenge to the Romanists to shew so much as one Father one Doctor in the Primitive times that hath expressed himself for them in the points of difference Then if they have expressed themselves and if not we have not opposed them they are on our side because we are upon contradictions Thus we see what is become of his unanswerable Argument We see that we can differ from them without opposition to the Catholick Church better than they can differ from us without opposition to the Catholick Church because we in our difference from them have kept the Catholick faith which they have warped from And so that which is left behind in the number will never come up to fight us to any purpose For as for the Reformers opposing the Church because they censured that which was proposed by the Papists as opposite to the word of God we take our Reformation from Scripture and also we say it is not necessary in points of difference to conclude that what is by them urged is opposite to the word of God For it is enough to us to differ upon the negative to the word of God since our principle is that the Scripture is a sufficient rule of faith and practise And therefore though a point proposed doth not oppose Scripture as not being contradictory yet we reject it from being any Article of faith because it is not contained in Scripture And thus the negative authority of Scripture doth sufficiently conclude against any other article of faith than what is in it And as for our not naming in this whole age one age in this last thousand years wherein Christ had a truly Catholick Church agreeing with you in those many and most important points wherein your Reformers taxed us to have opposed the Scriptures This in effect hath been answered before and hath not any thing materially new But first this is always an unreasonable demand which goes upon a certain presumption of the Romanist that the true Church must be alwaies conspicuously visible which is to be denied and therefore it doth not follow that because we cannot name any Church agreeing with us therefore there was none Secondly if he means by a truly Catholick Church one particular Church of the Catholick those whom we have named did not agree with them in the most important points of difference as not in point of Discipline nay they have differed from them and therefore have agreed with us in the questions betwixt us And besides if they meane a truely Catholick Church in this sense as a part of the whole then a particular Church it seems may be a Catholick and a truely Catholick Church and therefore have they no reason to vaunt of the title of Catholick given by the Antients to the Church or Bishop of Rome because other Churches may also be Catholick and why then should the Pope usurp the title of universall Bishop over a particular Church And if he means by a truely Catholick Church the Catholick Church properly then he doth imply a contradiction that the Catholick Church which includes all ages should be limited to a thousand yeares But thirdly he did wisely stint the question for this thousand yeares since he could not well go further for the six hundred years before do shew no disagreement to us in the most important points of difference And let them assure themselves that our agreement with the six hundred of the Primitive Church is more available for our defence than the supposed disagreement with the thousand years after is available to the accusation Fourthly suppose no one Church could be named corresponding with us in most important points for this thousand yeares yet even in every age of the thousand yeares there might be and some have named severall persons which have held the materiall points of difference betwixt us and severall of the Roman Communion have bore testimony to the truth yea even in the Trent Council in so much that they have been complained of for bending to Protestâ—ntisme as may be seen through the History of that Council Fifthly what Tyranny is this to stifle and smother by their domination all other Churches as much as they could which were not of their faith and then challenge us to shew what Church agreed with us Sixthly Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is then we are to take a true Church from trial of Scripture and we put it to this issue All Catholick Churches agree with Scripture in the most important points of difference we agree with Scripture or Scripture with us in these points therefore we agree with all Catholick Churches in these points because we agree in tertio Therefore if the Romanists differ let them look to it We differ from none but them in those points and that we differ from them is their fault and our security If they had not left the Catholick to be a singular Plenipotentiarie we had not left Communion with them as a part of the whole or rather they had not left our Communion Delictum ambulat cum Capite And as for that he says And as for externall division you cannot name the Church upon earth from which you did not divide your selves at your Reformation We return it with the necessary changes nor can they at their Deformation name the Church upon earth from which they did not divide themselves And I challenge them to tell me if they can to what Church on earth then visible they did joine themselves or who acknowledged to be of their Communion But first as for external Communion we say moreover first we divided not first Communion but the Pope when in the time of Queen Elizabeth he sent a Bill to prohibit his Subjects Communion with us 2. We divided not from their Church simply but so as corrupted and engaging us upon communion with them to error and bad practise We left the house as infected with a mind of returning when it shall be clear and safe for us Thirdly as before we divided not from the Primitive times in point of Doctrine or Discipline now then suppose there was not at the Reformation any other Church unto which we might joine which is more agreable to the duty and honor of a Church to joine with a corrupt Church in Doctrine and practise or to leave their communion externall
the History of the Councill of Trent and observeth so long deliberations so many interposals so hot disputes such changes so many notable Contradictions of many of them say that all Controversies were there infallibly ended As Tertullian to the Heathens appello Conscientiam vestram I appeale unto their Consciences when they are preparing for death whether Cardinall or Canonist or Pope dare affirme it This for the major As to the assumption I also may distinguish if he takes texts of Scripture as principles in order to Conclusions I hold them onely infallible If he takes texts of Scripture as in terms exclusively to Conclusions immediate so I do not hold them onely infallible but also the Conclusions which do naturally descend by prime resultance from them Now a Council may apply principles of Scripture which may resolve a question unto faith but this is not done always and absolutely and when it is done it is done by vertue of Scripture They do not determine things by Divine inspiration but by humane disquisition as was distinguished in the Trent Council and therefore may they misse possibly in their discourse Yea to the assumption I also say though I hold texts of Scripture onely infallible yet I onely do not hold them so but the Fathers as before the Nicene Doctors as before yea and some in the Trent Councill too as we have noted And again if any thing else be infallible then a Council if a Council then according to them the Council of Trent if the Council of Trent why did they not determine of Bishops whether they were jure Divino or not and why did they not determine of Residence whether jure Divino or not If they could not how were they infallible If they would not how were they faithfull Again If you be necessitated as you say to extend the texts of Christs assistance to his Church unto infallibility for the ending of controversies otherwise we shall remaine disputing without end or possibility of end and onely for this as he seems to meane then there is no necessity at all And the consequence is cleare without his absurdity upon the former distinction because plain things need not come into question and points of question need not an infallible decision Num. 13. In the thirteenth number I have two things chiefly to consider first his charge of impertinency in my declaring the difficulty of assent by the unanimous consent of all the Fathers of all ages every where Secondly I am to consider his Apology for waving the authority of the Fathers in this debate He asks me as to the first What connexion hath the perusall of every judgment of every Father of every age every where with that obligation which I put of following these Canons of Councils which make to the decision of those most known Controversies about which we contend Ans First there is a connexion of this discourse with the ground of that about which we are conversant namely the authority of the Church For what authority can they produce for the distinction of the Church from no Church in any profession or from a false Church but the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church What Council did make themselves by their own authority to be indeed Christians the first Councils were not antecedent to Christianity but Christianity to them So then either the Church is distinguished by the consent of the Fathers or by Scripture If by Scripture then is it the first principle and the last and a primo ad ultimum we have no more dependence upon the Church than from Scripture If by the consent of the Fathers then I spake before to good purpose though my Adversary said it was nothing to our purpose For the Councils we must be ruled by absolutely as he supposeth are the Councils of the Church are they not well then if the Church be distinguished by the unanimous consent of the Fathers which I suppose they will not deny then the discourse about the consent of the Fathers was not eccentricall to the point in hand Let them remember the rule of Aquinas Omne reducitur ad principium Secondly it beares connexion with the question about Councils per modum regulae as the rule by which they goe in their definitions Either they went by Scripture or by the consent of the Fathers If they went by Scripture then by my Adversaries opinion we must goe that way because we are to be infallibly directed by them If by the joint consent of the Fathers then surely our discourse was very proper and pertinent or if they will not have the Fathers consent to be considered so much as contradistinguished unto Scripture because as the Legates and Presidents of the Trent Council said the holy Fathers have no other grounds but Scripture yet the consent of the Fathers is distinguished from the object upon which their consent is terminated So then as for the sense of Scripture either the Councils went by the rule of the Father's joint interpretation or not if by it then we have our purpose of defending the reasonablenesse of our speech about the Fathers If not then by the common rules of understanding the sense of Scripture and then why should we not goe that way for our resolution which they go So that my Adversary needed not to have given me an admonition of holding close to the matter And yet I take that admonition very kindely that my Adversaries might be obedient to their own law That which he saies Is the judgement of every Father of every age the judgement of a Generall Council is nothing For though it be not the judgement of the Councill in recto yet I hope it was in causa not that they were determined by the judgement of one separately from the rest but because it is supposed by my Adversaries that they all agreed If they say they did not then let my Adversaries agree it as well as they can with the rest of their Church who stand as much for our obedience to them as to any other authority of the Church And whether they hold the Fathers as Judges or as witnesses it is all one to me because I speak of their authority in general So then if the judgement of every Father of every age disjunctively or distributively be not the judgement of a general Council which my Antagonists think unreasonable yet conjunctively and complexively I hope it is or should be according to their common principles And if they lie at catch upon the ambiguity of the termes of every Father of every age they commit a plain fallacy in distribution and also are peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for if they meane every Father of every age distributively it doth not contradict me who speake of them in consent And now shall I come to the second taske to hunt out the reason why he would not deale with me in this Controversie by the authority of the Fathers He saies
them as they think fit to take Kings out of the way But this by the way Indeed their Church will lead us to Rome but not to truth The universall Church will lead us sooner to truth than to Rome But what way have we to lead us to this way If the Church were the Kings high way how shall we know how to get into the road If we had a mind to go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Fathers sense the midle way we should make use of the universall Church to find that which is held to be Scripture and then go in the way of Scripture which is Gods High way And surely the Royall law is like to be the Royall way And which is more reasonable that the Scripture should be onely a directory to the Church or the Church a directory to Scripture if the former then when we know the Church we may leave the direction of Scripture and bid it goe back for now we know thâ— way and so the Scripture should not be necessary which yet is held by the Papists generally and elsewhere acknowledged bâ— my Adversary if the latter then is the Scripture the high way to truth And therefore in the debate of truth the appeale lies from the Church to Scripture not contrariwise And so it must for a distinct and perfect knowledge of the Church we must have from the Scripture as before So that that which is the rule of the rule must be the rule of that which is ruled even in that wherein it is a rule So then in the search of truth we must make the Scripture to be the way of our resolution because by it we must know distinctly the Church And not onely so in the search of this truth which is the true Church but in other truths too which are necessary unlesse the Scripture should refer us to the Church absolutely for truth which is not yet demonstrated Therefore as to humane perswasion we plead the Church as to faith we plead the Scripture By the Church we come to know what goes for truth in it but by Scripture we come to know whether that which goes for truth be so indeed In things of question and of discipline we are not stoicall to the Church but in business of faith we must be Scepticks notwithstanding were there any need in such things to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Things of faith may prevent questions on either side things of question require no faith by necessity of matter on either side That he adds since by that means of Scripture onely either neither side will be victorious or it is a hazard whether is not necessary to be answered since we have formerly shewed the necessity of appealing to Scriptures and disputing out of them onely as to faith in things of faith which my Adversary would deny me upon this ground because this debate out of Scripture would not afford a certain and clear victory And as for victory we hope they intend it not No body is to get the victory in these disputes for they are undertaken for truth And for what is necessary to be believed we have in Scripture the plain truth and what is not necessary one may have that victory and not the truth and so one may have the truth and not the victory Let them shew us truth and they shall not stay for the victory That which follows in this Sexion is conveniently retorted and more to my Adversary These things he might have learned from the antientest Fathers as before if he had regarded their Doctrine Yet since their authority hath so low a place in his esteem in order to the finding out of truth which is against them he doth not lay aside all that might be said out of the Fathers to humor me as he says but upon some other good reason methinks he should not so far spare his Adversary if he did see him not to be well guarded on that part But it is like the truth is when they produce the Fathers for them then we must be their Children absolutely which is more than they would have us doe but when we produce the Fathers for us then they will not be their children at all They must have the Fathers come all the way to them otherwise they have nothing to say to them Surely we had more reason to refuse any dealing with the Fathers because we cannot recognize them as infallible than my Adversaries who acknowledge them when they please them to be such And if the consent of the Fathers be part of their principles they bragge of they are to stand to their own principles when we dispute with them out of them or else they betray them We are not bound to stand to their principles but they are bound by their own Laws to answer to them Therefore this declining of any return to what I say out of the Fathers or to my answers to what he said because I will not own them as unerrable must be set down a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Par. 14. So the beginning of the fourteenth Par. wherein you say I cut them off by your own consent all you say concerning St. Cyprian and the Crisis of St. Austin concerning St. Cyprian might have been spared I have cut it off I see he was ready to take all things for his advantage If I had wholly refused to give any account to the testimonies of the Fathers brought against me then though I had not given him a formal consent it might have been thought on interpretative consent but falsum prius And therefore this is plain Sophistry in him Yet I have a great mind ex abundanti to tell you that St. Austin expressed exceedingly well that Humility and Charity be those virtues which made St. Cyprian and ought to make us submit to generall Councils as a prime point of our bounden duty Ans I take leave to say that he hath skipped all my answers to the instance of St. Cyprian but onely this And then I say that I have also a great mind to differ from him as little as may be If he takâ—s to submit to Generall Councils as controlling turbulent opposition or in points of outward administration of the Church I grant it but if he takes it by an infallibility ingaging faith then I deny it Those virtues are of use to the former submission not to the latter In the first sense of Submission Humility is dispositive but not the actus Imperans as he says of most submissive obedience The actus Imperans of this externall submission is an act of internall obedience to God as commanding such obedience to the orders of those whom under pain of damnation we are bound to obey but in things lawfull and honest onely And no further are we obliged to obedience Therefore whereas he speaks as if under pain of damnation we are bound to obey them universally it is not so And it will not be Humility to obey
spared For as we do not argue in Divinity from texts mystically delivered unlesse the mysticalnesse be rendred in Scripture so we do not account those texts which are ambiguous to be such as to contain points necessary to salvation Therefore is my Adversary very wide in this discourse because it goeth upon a supposition that every text is necessarily to be understood and infallibly in the sense thereof This can be denied freely without any detrement to our cause Might we not therefore smile at that which follows as if we were bound infallibly to know the secret free will of God for which we must have a revelation or else our cause should be lost What is this to the contradiction of us unlesse we were either obliged to know infallibly all senses of all texts or unlesse those texts which contain points necessary were so doubtfull in the sense thereof We deny both The Scripture is in the sense And as to points necessary the revelation is in the words no need of a revelation of the sense after the revelation of the words because the sense is revealed in the words As if when our Savior saith This is eternall life to know thee the onely true God and him whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ we must yet have an eternall labor to find out distinctly in what sense we must take plain necessary truths As if when our Savior commands us to repent and believe we had need of another revelation or an infallible Judge to tell us in what sense we must take the words As if when our Saviour says that he hath revealed these things to babes we must go to the Holy Father of Rome and the Fathers of a Councill for an uncontrolable exposition of these things If then by the secret free will of God Gods purposes of binding us in our obedience that as to things necessary is revealed in the termes His voluntas signi as they speak as to these things necessary is plainly delivered and otherwise the expression were not good if we needed another revelation of the sense Indeed the voluntas bene placiti as to his actions that needs a revelation but what is this to our purpose The former will how he would expresse himself was free to him before he did reveal himself in such writings but afterwards it was determined by the plain signification of the words as to those matters of faith And where do they find this revelation in Scripture that we must go to the Church for a revelation of the sense of difficult texts Yea of those texts which concern the Church How shall we know whether those texts be rightly interpreted and know it infallibly Not by the Church For the question is of the Church Not by a revelation made to particular persons for then we might have a revelation of other texts in the sense of them Therefore must they say they are plain And if so then so may other texts be especially such as respect necessity to salvation Therefore when we have tried all ways as to faith we must center in Scripture And let them think upon that of Christ to St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What he says Fourthly I have little to say to The authorites of Sanctius and Sharpius which he produceth are more for my advantage than his For my Adversary confesseth that learned Sanctius confesseth that holy Scripture in those things which are necessary is clear Secondly as for the nineteen rules which he gives as necessary to the knowledge thereof this may respect other texts of Scripture which do not contemn necessary points Thirdly if those rules be intended as to the knowledge of what is necessary to salvation and not to the knowledge of Scripture in generall yet the difficulty must not be great even by those rules for how then can Scripture be clear as to things necessary Yea also St. Austin gives rules for the understanding of Scripture and yet holds that Scripture as to faith and manners plainly delivers things necessary as before Neither is it necessary for our cause to exclude the use of means for the understanding of Scripture even in things necessary It is sufficient to us that by the use of means those texts are so plain as that we have no need of an external infallible Judge But we can admit with Sharpius the means he names to know originall Languages to discusse the words Phrases and Ebraisms to confer the places which are like and unlike to one another as to the understanding of Scripture de communi and they are necessary but he cannot mean these rules to be necessary for the understanding of every truth in Scripture And therefore if his authority were sufficient yet cannot this he says be effectuall to prove a necessity of all these means as to the finding out of the sense of those texts wherein necessary truths are laid down That Jesus is the Christ that whosoever believeth shall be saved that there is a necessity of good works are truths so plain as he that cannot use those means may plainly discern and therefore need we not the help of those rules as to produce infallibility To be even then with my Adversary for these authorities we may also urge as the Arch Bishop of Collen who as before reformed his Church by the rule of Scripture so also the Cardinall of Rochester who in the Trent Council said It was better to take for our ground the Scripture whence true Theology is taken than the subtilties of Philosophy which the Schools have used Hist Trent Counc Pag. 197. 8. And add hereunto the uncertainties of the sense of a Council as appears by contest of Soto and Viga Hist Tr. Counc 216. As for the saying of that so much esteemed Chillingworth which he adds fifthly namely no more certain sign that a point is not evident than when honest understanding and indifferent men such as give themselves liberty of judgment after mature consideration of the matter do differ about Unto which he subsumes About how many points do you and your Brethren differ which I have in this chap. shewed to be points mainly necessary to salvation which according to this rule of knowing what is evident what not are evidently not set down plainly in Scripture What comes this to but a confusion For Mr. Chillingworth gives us the Maxim and my Adversary makes the assumption upon presumption that he hath proved many things to be differed about which he saith he hath shewed to be necessary to salvation By Mr. Chillingworth's rule those points should not be necessary because we differ about them But my Adversary would fain prove it may be that Mr. Chillingworth's rule is false If it be false how can he use it against me If it be not false then it concludes more against him however till he proves our differences to be about necessaries his discourse hath neither forme nor truth upon his part Some twelve lines of this number
he imploys in repetitions and references to the fourth chap. His repetitions have been answered in the matter his References are referred to their place Num. 6. That which follows concerning texts which he thinks are for him that the very reading of them sheweth them to be no lesse plain and clear to this purpose than those places which you cry out to be evident for the proof of every point which is necessary to salvation me thinks doth somewhat enterfair upon what he had said before that we could not understand God's free will how to mean his own words without a revelation For now those texts which they fansie for them by the very reading of them shew themselves to be as clear as those which we cry out to be so evident we say so plain So then some degree of clearness there may be in words without a revelation of the sense since God hath no mentall reservation And if they grant some clearnesse as it is necessary they must for those texts which concern the Church then surely there may be more than they grant Secondly will they say that those texts they urge for the Church are as clear for the Roman Church in point of infallibility as this proposition is whosoever believes shall be saved Dare they say it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We can prove the contrary by their own argument that about which there is more difference is not so clear there is more difference about the texts for the Church therefore those not so clear Therefore also let them no more object our differences for our differences from them prove well that their way is not plain and their differences amongst themselves prove better that their way is not plain And our differences amongst our selves do prove onely that those points wherein we differ are not plain but do not prove that those points that are necessary are not plain because in them we do not or need not to differ Thirdly are those texts for them no more plain than our texts for things necessary to salvation If not then where is the ground of their infallibility For the texts are not clear for it are they If they be then our texts for necessaries to salvation are I hope as clear then what need of a Judge infallible And why then do they not as well believe the points necessary to salvation upon account of Scripture as they do the point of infallibility Well but our texts being not clear sufficiently of themselves the authority of the Church adds clearnesse doth it Yea but this is more improperly affirmed if they do say so than they think of for the judgement of the Church is more influxive into the clearnesse of it as to us than their authority They first see the sense of the texts before they do declare it by their authority For if this be the sense because they declare it so and they do not declare it to be the sense because they see it discussively to be the sense then God inspiring the Pen-men of Scripture intended but the words of Scripture and that the Church should give us the soul the sense the Kernell of Scripture And why then did the Trent Councill make Scriptures the chief rule as they say of their proceedings if they did not determine of points and actions by their discerning the mind of God in the Scripture as to those particulars So then also if their discerning of the sense of Scripture was substrated to their definitions then the Scripture is discernible in the sense to us also Fourthly if those texts he names be no clearer than those we say which are necessary to salvation then let them never endeavour by Scripture to perswade any to their Religion For if the texts be no clearer for the Church than points in Scripture are as to necessity of salvation then surely the Argument is equall on both sides and then there is by Scripture no necessity clear of an infallible Judge But he prefers his texts in clearnesse to ours in the following words And I am sure you can bring no such evident texts for all yea or for any of these points which I have already said in this ch not to be evidently set down in Scripture though they be of prime necessity as others also which I will by and by add The use of this to me is this to say that the same was said before yet also we can note that he should have preferred the clearnesse of those texts for the Church before the clearnesse of those points which we confesse to be necessary to salvation but he prefers it before those which we either deny or question to be necessary If any one should say this were a Sophisters trick I could not tell how to deny it And yet also further we say if those texts which are for the Church are so plain then a fortiori those texts which are for points necessary must be more plain and my reason is this because these are necessary for the being of a Member of the Church invisible those for the Church onely necessary for the being of a Member of the Church visible Now there is a greater necessity of the former than there is of the latter for as before it is possible to be saved without the finding of a regular visible Church but it is not possible for any to be saved who is not a Member of the invisible Yea again he doth not speak according to the mind of Mr. Knot in saying texts for the Church are so evident for one of the qualities of the object of faith should be Ch. 6. against Dr. Pots according to him that it is obscure that so it may be capable of the obedience of faith But to end this we onely note more the slavery of the Romanist in that he is bound to be so dis-ingenuous as to hold the texts of Scripture to be so clear only for the Church which they interpret the Roman But also herein they do not differ from all other sects which they so much upbraid that texts for them are clear if any other And we have the benefit of it whom he takes to be a Sect till he shews the Contrary But the Scripture doth far more clearly set down a Command to goe to the Church for our full instruction So St. Paul was taught all things necessary for his knowledge by those few words Acts the 9.6 Goe into the City and it shall be told thee what thou must doe Ans And have they no better Arguments St. Paul was commanded to go into the City and there it should be told him what he must do therefore we must go to the City of Rome and there we shall know all things necessary to salvation So then As the Cardinall Richlieu was flattered by a great servant of his that God needed not to have extended his Providence to the lower world but he might have left that to the Governance of the Cardinall so
also it speaks plainly and so distinctly unto many other profitable points as that no doubt can remain of the true sense And fifthly whereas they say or if there be made any doubt of any thing of importance c. this new peice takes off from the old and makes the rent worse for if the living Oracle speaks so distinctly that no doubt can remain of the true sense then what need of any further provision for doubts emergents as if they durst not trust their own principles And again if they can assoile all doubts that shall arise why do they not why since the Trent Council hath there been no other to explain the sense of the former in severall particulars that which was never done and yet would be of such use is morally reputed for an impossibility as St. Jerom disputed against the Pelagians This would prove wilfull ignorance in the Church Representative And therefore cannot we be obliged to follow it absolutely for it seems sometimes it will not lead us And if they say that we may well be saved without the infallible dejudication of the sense of perplexed terms why do they then include in the case a thing of importance Yea and also we can then by their allowance say we may be safely ignorant of some points which are not of importance to salvation and therefore are in a capacity good enough to give the negative to a Judge infallible Nay sixthly neither can the doubt be presently cleared by some new Declaration authentically notified unto us by our Pastors and Doctors Not presently first because a Councill must be called which the Roman Church will be well advi of before and if it costs them as much time to consider of it and to dispatch it as the Trent Council this presently will not come within forty years and more And if he says the present Pope can presently deliver the sense and notify it authentically then why says he it may be done by Pastors and Doctors Why doth he speak in the number of plurality to the prejudice of the one Authoritative Pastor Well it may be he means Pastors and Doctors in common can authentically notifie us the sense then private Doctors may be authentick which spoils all and is contrary to Jesuit and Roman Catholicks as they call themselves in generall and to his own opinion who placeth all authority and infallibility in a Council confirmed by the Pope For we are bound they say to the sense of the Decrees then if private Doctors and Pastors can authentically notifie us the sense then are we bound to them Yea and also why may not then our private Pastors and Doctors declare to us the sense of doubtfull texts as well as theirs and then why an infallible Judge Yea can private Pastors and Doctors authentically notifie us the sense and not the infallible Judge If he can why doth he not If he will not how shall we take him for our Guide They have determined the words of their definitions but have either not determined or determined not to determine the acception and sense but that must be left for Pastors and Doctors And therefore seventhly and lastly he had better have not have produced these passages in reference to those texts For God gave us Pastors and Doctors then not onely one Pastor of the Church as the high Romanist accounts who makes all others to be as his Curates in all the universall Church Why then doth one arrogate that which in common is assigned to more Calvin in his Comment upon the Epistle to Titus thinks it unreasonable that the name of Bishop which is common to many should be appropriated to one though he denies not there the superiority of one to the rest of the Clergy and my Adversary would have the action of a Pastor authenticall to be common to many whereas the title others would have proper to one and to be given to the rest but analogically This text then by my Adversaries exposition derogates from the ordinary and universall Pastor because it alloweth his priviledge to many But then again he commits a fallacy of division in attributing the end to a part which is applied to the whole for it is said there And he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints the work of the Ministry They are all given complexively for that end and he takes it distributively and of the last As if all faith were to be resolved into the dictates of Pastors and Teachers whereas the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner stone Eph. 2.20 Yea and again there is to be made a difference between the Pastors and Doctors then and now there having been then better gifts given to them than now and they having been then nearer the fountain of Evangelicall truth than now and therefore though the office is continued it is not necessary that when the Christian Church hath been so long setled there should be such perfection in the successors Distingue tempora as the rule is His seventh number might well have been spared Num. 7. for he seems to charge me with not doing what in the eight number he says I go about to do Only whereas he says for me that the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation the terms may admit a distinction If he takes the terms all alone so as to be understood contradistinctly to an infallible Judge so we stand to them if he takes them so as to exclude all use of Pastors and Doctors so are not we bound to them we can in our opinion exclude the infallible Judge without exclusion to the direction of Pastors and Teachers which although not exempted from possibility of error yet may also be consulted even in texts sufficiently plain Besides as he states the point for us that the Scriptures taken by themselves all alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary to salvation we can easily subscribe unto upon another distinction which we have in metaphysick about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the unapprehensivenesse of them doth more proceed from the weaknesse of the faculty than the nature of the things themselves so the Scriptures by themselves alone do teach us with infallibility all things necessary although we were not able to perceive infallibly the sense of them All things necessary yet are infallibly taught there and therefore this serves to the evacuation of their verbum non scriptum because that this is not pretented for the clearing of Scripture but for the supply of matter defective Num. 8. To come now to the discussion of the texts And first you presse the second time that of St. Paul to Tim. 2.15 16. And here he says Take for my first Answer that which I gave you when you first alleadged this place ch 1. num
13. And you must pardon me if I say that which he had said before But how can I take it for full satisfaction that before I am referred to the third chap. and here we are sent back again to the place from whence he came This if we might say so is plain bo peep He hath my answer there which is yet good The Scriptures thus Profaned and by such interpretations truely discanoned as I may say are rather subject to that effect which St. Pauls Epistles according to St. Peter had with some men i. e. they are subject to be depraved by them to the perdition of their Interpreters But what is this to us And yet will they say because men are subject to deprave the Scripture therefore is Scripture subject to be depraved And after the same manner that the Scriptures may be discanoned by such interpretations so may also the Decrees of the Councils if men have a greater reverence of the Decrees and Canons of Councils than of the Holy Scriptures And if Scripture be discanoned by a false sense then Scripture is canoned by a true and so then by giving a true sense of Scripture the Church should make Scripture which yet is denied by the learnedst Pontificians And also if we must put upon Scripture the corruptions of men as he doth by a fallacy of accident then have we lesse reason to esteem of Scripture by the authority of men Whereby the way you are again to take notice c. unto it was then true To that which he says here we answer again since he will have it so that the act of wresting Scripture is damnative not by the error of the understanding but by the perversenesse of the will whatsoever the matter of that Scripture be whether necessary or not And he does well to conclude for us Consequently these places did not according to your Doctrine contain points necessary to salvation namely because they were hard It is right yet not because they were wrested they did not contain points necessary for points necessary may possibly also be wrested but rather because they were hard to be understood Points hard to be understood are more like to be wrested than points wrested hard to be understood And the perdition follows not upon the ignorance of the things not necessary but upon the depravation of the texts And therefore our allowance of some liberty of Interpretations even in hard points may not easily prove damnable First the liberty is not so much allowed as necessary Secondly the liberty is not damnable but the abuse Thirdly the allowance is not so much to hard points but things plain where the Lamb may wade Fourthly it is necessary that the people should know that which is necessary to be known it is accidentall that they should mis-interpret the text which doth not contain that which is necessary Now shall he be deprived of that which is necessary upon a contingent inconvenience which also if he hath a sober mind cannot betide him Felix periculum in necessariis Sapiens non curat de accidentalibus It was then true which I told you in another place that though the Scripture be a most right rule yet it is very commonly so crookedly applied that we stand in need of a better security of the Interpretation of it in which the very kernell of the letter doth consist than we have of the Interpretation finally stood unto made by the private judgement of our own discretion Ans My Adversary by his fallacy of accident is falling upon another question namely this whether it be not dangerous to let men have the free use of Scripture which although it seems to conclude for him yet doth not punctually conclude against me in the particular point of Controversie namely whether the Srcipture doth plainly deliver things necessary As it is said by some that some Hares when they are hotly hunted will squart before another hare to put the Hunters upon a new chase so he would start as it were another question to put me off from the prosecution of the right question But secondly we will follow this also and we say that he here grants as much as which extensively concludes against him For if the Scripture be a most right rule as he confesseth then are we to be ruled by it Let me ask why did God give us this most right rule what to be laid aside because by some it is crookedly aplied Is this a good consequence Because the authority of the Church hath been urged by Hereticks therefore we should not urge the Authority of the Church Because the Gospel doth harm to some by their corruption therefore we should not have it preached Because Dudithius the Bishop of five Churches said of the Trent Council that the Holy Ghost had nothing to do with the Council and that he was carried in a Carriers Portmantle to Trent and that the Spirit of God which moved upon the waters could not come to Trent because the waters were up therefore we must not make use of Councils for the ending of Controversies Such consequences his argumentation affords let them own these or retract their reasoning Thirdly where shall we have a better security of the Interpretation of it Let them first secure a better security of the Interpretation of it It is true if the Interpretation of a Council be compared with the Interpretation of a private judgement it is probable that the Interpretation of a Council should be better but the question is whether we can have security for faith by the Interpretation of a Council This we deny since Councils may possibly erre in the Interpretations of some texts and particularly the Trent Council did err in some Interpretations as some of the Divines therein have signified And then fourthly he doth freely or inconsiderately mistake our cause in the allowances we give to the private judgement of discretion for we do not say that we should finally stand to our private Interpretation either as to determine others thereby or to prefer our own Interpretation before that publick judgement of a Council but this we say that the sense of Scripture cannot be obtruded to us as to believe it upon their account unlesse we see good reason out of Scripture for it The private judgement of discretion hath not it self in this case as in a contrary competition to the Council but hath it self negatively and is upon the suspense till it sees Gods word for it But he knew my answer as it seems I know your answer is that it is accidentall to this rule to be misapplied and this cannot infringe the authority of Scripture Yes this was in substance my answer before But now it will not serve as my Adversary would perswade me by his distinction It doth not indeed infringe the authority of Scripture useth as God would have it used with due submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church Otherwise c. unto neither Ans He means
private judgement of discretion doth not infringe the authority of the Scripture used as God would have it used but the misapplication of it which he should have spoken to doth infringe the authority of the Scripture so used So we see he did not discourse properly But secondly he seems here to make nothing almost of Scripture unlesse used with due submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church And this also in effect begs the question whether we cannot make use of Scripture well as unto necessaries without submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church and also again it begs the question whether we are bound to stand to no sense of Scripture without submission to the publick Interpretation of the Church Yea thirdly we may also crookedly apply the determinations of the Church as hath been shewed de facto and therefore why doth he argue against the use of Scripture as the rule because it may yet be crookedly applied This argument is to us common with them we can use it against the Church as they use it against Scripture and therefore this cannot determine our particular Controversie Yea fourthly the Scripture which is acknowledged by my Adversary a most right rule is a rule to the Church too is it not If not then have they no Divine authority to shew for the authority of the Church if so then we can make use of Scripture without the authority of the Church because we make use of Scripture for the authority of the Church Omne per accidens reducitur ad aliquid per se So we may make use of Scripture by it self and therefore the authority of Scripture may be infringed without respect to the authority of the Church And therefore all he says comes to nothing unlesse he proves two points First that Scripture needs an infallible Interpreter for things necessary The second this that God doth provide us of an infallible Interpreter with infallible knowledge who it is Neither is this to speak more irreverently of Scripture than St. Peter spoke of St. Paul's Epistles He says the Scripture is a most right rule good He says it is infallible good He says he speaks no more irreverently of it than St. Peter spake of St. Paul's Epistles good Good words and we give good words for his good words But doth St. Peter put in the authority of the publick Interpretation of the Church to be necessary to the right applying of St. Paul's Epistles This did not St. Peter Did he say that St. Paul's Epistles doth not plainly contain any thing necessary to salvation this did not St. Peter Did he say that St. Paul saies in his Epistles that the Church is our infallible Guide and the way so plain that fools◠〈◊〉 err This did not St. Peter Did he sa◠〈◊〉 were so hard to be understood in St. Paul's Epistles This did not St. Peter If they will believe him without the attestation of his successor let them consider what he says in his 2. Ep. 1. ch 19 20 21. ver We have also a more firm word of Prophecy More firm or most firm as sometimes the Comparative for the Superlative More firm surely than the Church which in part is built upon it as St. Paul Whereunto ye doe well that ye take heed as to a light shining in a dark place c. And if a light shining in a dark place then it hath not such need of an infallible Interpreter we see light by itself It is not so dark and obscure as my Adversary would have it for it is a light shining in a dark place And certainly if that a light and shining in a dark place then the whole new Testament is a light so clear and sufficient as that we need not the help of an infallible Judge either to this light or in this light And can it be well immagined that Scripture being not of private exhibition or delivery because Prophecy came not of old time by the will of man but holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost can it be imagined that this should be by the Holy Ghost so obscurely or ambiguously proposed as that we must have necessity of a living Judge to make the sense of it sufficiently plain to salvation If the Holy Ghost can clearly give us the sense as speaking by his Church could he not as plainly give us the sense as when he spake by the Prophets Have we need of another Prophecy and Revelation of the sense But it seems by them God must accomodate the stile of Scripture for the use of the Roman Church and must invelope it in cloudy difficulties that we must go to Rome to see the Sun of Righteousnesse shining there as in Delos without a cloud And this also is enough to answer what follows which is so much out of the way because we cannot find our question in it whether things necessary are plainly contained in Scripture For what is this to it that nothing more clear than that the words of Scripture are capable of severall senses If he means in all Texts he is as easily contradicted nothing more clear than that some words of Scripture are not capable of severall senses If he means of some what is this to the Elench We can say some words are capable of severall senses consistently to this that things necessary are plain And as to his question how shall we infallibly know Gods secret intention in which sense or whether in both he intended them but by an Interpreter having infallible assistance from the same Holy Spirit who assisted those who did write the Scriptures We answer first as before it toucheth not the question unlesse it be applied to words which speak of necessaries to salvation and then we deny it that such texts are so perplexed Secondly some texts we may take in divers senses not contrary Thirdly as he hath not proved to us an infallible Judge so here he doth not prove a need of an infallible Interpreter unlesse he could prove that it is necessary to salvation that we should know the intended sense of every doubtfull passage in Scripture Neither again fourthly for they shall have it toties quoties the definitions of the Councils are some of them ex composito so framed as that we do not clearly see the intention of the Council in what sense or whether in both the words should be taken And must we not then according to my Adversary have another infallible Interpreter of them And if they deliver not the thing clear then another infallible Interpreter of them and if they deliver not the thing clear then another infallible Interpreter of them and so in infinitum And if they say it is not necessary in points of question indubitably to decide in plain terms which part is to be held then we ask why they do not allow a latitude to us since the Council by them is intended for a remedy And therefore need we not again
in writing Ans The former is I suppose proved more than they desire And to this we answer first if it be manifest that some part of Scripture is perished he might have told us which otherwise it seems it is not manifest No certain and manifest knowledge of the generall but by some particulars Secondly If any part be lost it is either of the old or of the new Testament if of the old the new hath the same matter as to sufficiency with clearnesse If of the new the old was able to make Timothy wise unto salvation And my Adversary might have known that not onely Mr. Chillingworth affirms that there is enough in one Gospel precisely necessary to salvation but also that their Bellarmin in the former B. and Ch. says that all the utilities of Scripture which here are rehearsed are found in the second Ep. of St. John If any book then be lost which we are not certain of nor they neither because for ought we know not defined by the Church yet by nis opinion namely Bellarmins that which remains may be profitable yea sufficient for those uses without an infallible Judge And again if any book of either Testament or any of both be lost this will redound to the prejudice of the Roman because they account that they onely are the Church and that the Church is the keeper of Divine truth then they have not faithfully preserved the truth of God and therefore if they were infallible in what they doe propose how should we trust them that what is delivered as truth they would keep since through their negligence they have let some book or books of Scripture perish Quis custodiet ipsos custodes But it may be they have kept traditions more faithfully Then surely the books of Scripture were lost with good discretion that it might reflect honor to the integrity of Traditions O sanctas Gentes quibus haec nascuntur in hortis Numina Your second Text to prove this is Heb. 4.12 Here is the text Num. 10. but where is the contradictory conclusion in terminis and that evidently that it is plainly set down in Scripture that the Scripture by it self alone is sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies c. Ans Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is The occasion of this began thus I was to dispute against the Judges authority to bind upon his own account as he might have noted had he pleased My argument was this the Judge determins by Scripture or not If not then he makes a new law and the authority of the Church in proposing Divine truths is immediate by the assistance of the Holy Ghost and not by disquisition which Stapleton denies in the beginning of his sixth generall Controversie if by Scripture then doth his determination bind by authority of Scripture whereof he is but a Minister This my Adversary says not a word unto Then ex abundanti I put this text to him to give him a check in the course of his exceptions against Scripture We do not say that the Scripture is formally a Judge but yet by this text we have so much said as amounts in effect to be a Judge internall by mediation of conscience which is more than their Judge infallible can pretend to And therefore as to the demand of a Contradictory Conclusion from hence I say this text was pertinently produced to that purpose I intended of it which was not that it should be a directory weapon against my Adversary but that it should be of use to cut off their Pleas against Scripture as that it is a dead letter not a living Judge it is living quick that it can do nothing it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it cannot decide controversies it is sharper than any two edged Sword As the law decides cases of right so it decides Controversies of faith And those points of faith pretended which are not contained therein it doth cut off If they say it cannot reach the Conscience What then can It is piercing to the dividing of soul and spirit joints and marrow If they say it cannot judge it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 criticall exactly judicative of the thoughts and notions of the heart But to come to the point he would have me shew that this sharpnesse is in order not onely to decide Controversies but also all necessary Controversies and to do this by it self alone And if not where is then your Contradictory Conclusion Ans It may decide Controversies and not necessary Controversies but if it decide necessary Controversies then to be sure it doth decide Controversies Our question is whether it determins necessary Controversies Yea neither are we bound to dispute the question because we said it not nor are we bound to make it good in their sense In our sense yet it doth sufficiently decide all necessary Controversies because it doth so plainly deliver things of necessary faith that there needs not be any decision of them by any inerrable Judge And then also secondly because if there be any question about necessary points the Scripture is the rule according to which it is to be determined And thirdly it doth in effect examine and judge in the inward man cases of opinion and of action which an externall Judge doth not as such because they are not known to him And in this regard I conceive that the heretick is said as before to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the law of God or of the Spirit of God in the law doth by his own Conscience condemn him in holding a materiall error against his own light Yea let them answer to their own Estius who upon the place saith that the Scripture hath the properties of God attributed to it and because God speaks to us by Scripture and therefore he saith Vt Gladius penetrat et laedit ita sermo Dei intuetur et punit Itaque significatur cognitio non nuda sed qualis est Judicis examinantis et cognoscentis ut puniat As the sword pierceth and woundeth so doth the word of God take notice and punish therefore is signified not a naked knowledge but such as is of a Judge examining and taking cognizance that it may punish Now because that which is not intended sometimes proves better than that which was intended as the rule is Melius est aliquando id quod est per accidens quam id quod est per se therefore may we draw an argument in form from hence thus That which judgeth and infallibly is an infallible Judge The Scripture judgeth so the text and Estius upon it and infallibly as they will confesse then the Scripture is an infallible Judge Now if it be an infallible Judge it is very reasonable that it should be an infallible Judge as to points necessary and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is no necessity of an externall infallible Judge as to determine faith for that is done by it there
he makes a calumny because he thinks it as impossible for the Pope to say that vices are vertues as if God the Father should say such a thing was a vertue and Christ should preach such a thing was a vice Ans It would do well as he said to use soft words and hard arguments waving therefore his reflexions we say first the calumnie is not in saying of him what he sayes not but in the mis-interpretation how he speaks it And to this we say it is not necessary to be a calumny for it may be spoken of him as it was spoken by him in way of supposition and may be spoken of him to be spoken by him And therefore if it was no calumny in the Cardinall to say so it may be no calumny in me to say of the Cardinall that he said so They will think a notionall supposition makes no slander whosoever be the subject and whatsoever the predicate and therefore if he thinks that I must speak it of Bellarmin slanderously he must also think that Bellarmin might speak it so too Secondly if it were as impossible to suppose any such thing of the Pope as that God should say such a thing is a virtue and Christ should preach it to be a vice Then why hath the Pope such a Council to assist him It is well put into more hands for fear of a defectibilitie in one And if it be said that this was spoken of the Pope only hypothetically to his saying so as being assisted with a Council it is easily answered that this is not the Jesuits opinion that the Pope is infallible onely with a Council And by the way if a Pope be infallible onely with a Council why did Pope Clement say that a Council was always good but when it medled with the Popes authority Is there any point more considerable than the Popes authority And is he onely infallible in a Council and yet is he afraid that this point should be meddled with in a Council Then he must suspect his own cause in their opinion Well and can God err or can Christ err in precepts and particular judgements as Bellarmin confesseth in the same chap. it is not absurd that the Pope should err And can God or Christ err in commanding any thing unprofitable or under too heavy a punishment It is not absurd to say this of the Pope although it belongs not to subjects to doubt of this but simply to obey as he says in the same chap. Nay if to speak so of the Pope as Bellarmin says in way of supposition were a slander then Bellarmin slanders the Pope also in his second b. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 29. Itaque sicut licet resistere Pontifici c. Therefore as it is lawfull to resist the Pope invading our body so is it lawfull to resist him invading souls and troubling a Commonwealth and much rather Si Ecclesiam destruere niteretur if he should endeavour to destroy the Church Thus he Then he shall defend me therefore may I be clear of slander against Bellarmin or he guilty of slander against the Pope But then thirdly put case I account it no slander against the Pope to affirm a possibility in him to say that vice is virtue The Consequence I hope is good ab esse ad posse he hath done so therefore is it possible To command disobedience to Christ under colour of obedience to him is to say really that vice is virtue and this the Pope hath done in the injunction of his dimi-Communion as before And let them before they presse this slander any further first help Bellarmin to purge the Pope of all those errors in faith and determinations affirmative against Gods precepts negative in point of practice And when they have done this then we shall be afraid to suppose a possibility if we cannot find further instances of fact And therefore they shall not scare us with a charge of calumnie untill they have strongly asserted such an impossibility Indeed impossibilis conditio facit negativam we cannot err in obedience if we cannot err in commanding but that he cannot err in commands is yet sub judice and not himself All Protestants do say as I noted that the Scripture Num. 19. and onely the Scripture is left us by Christ for our Judge to end all Controversies Ans This is no genuine account of our opinion They do not assert the Scripture to be a Judge in formalities They say there is no need of such a Judge as Papists would have since all necessaries unto faith and hope and charity are sufficiently delivered in matter and form without any exigence of such a Judge And in this they agree with all right Catholicks not with Hereticks as he would have it And Hereticks he may know as before have urged the Church for them and St. Austin hath dealt with Hereticks by Scripture and therefore if Hereticks use the Scripture must we not since Hereticks urge the Church by his argument they must not they know the rule Duo cum idem faciunt non est idem It is one thing to use Scripture for the proof of some points and another thing to say Scripture and onely Scripture must be the Judge for all Controversies To what end then is all you say against me as against one misliking the use of Scripture Ans This is all I have from him in account to five or six answers I gave him to the charge against me for using Scripture as Hereticks do Thus easily he puts me off Well to this put-off we say first that this distinction of his imports a confession of his to use Scripture in some points then is not the proposall of the Church necessary to all points and this is some abatement of his former universality Secondly those points he allows the use of Scripture in are necessary as was intimated before since Bellarmin doth own the Scripture for a rule also And if Scripture doth deliver some points necessary quatenus taeles then all necessaries as before neither need these necessaries be many as Mr. Chillingworth hath observed and Tertullian also in effect Certa sunt in paucis The rule of faith used by the Fathers was not numerous in particulars Thirdly we say not that the Scripture is a proper Judge much lesse for all Controversies And therefore if they will stand to what is here said by them and withdraw that which is not duly said of us let them take the Counters and cast up the difference betwixt us They allow the Scripture in some points we allow the Church in some points they allow the Scripture I suppose in some points necessary we allow the Church much in points not necessary If they would extend some points necessary to all points necessary which are not many we not upon condition but freely would give the Church due reverence in points of question and thus there would be soon an end of the Controversies betwixt us and in
and is therefore assured us by the Spirit not because it is the hardest point but because it is the ground of all faith Perhaps because our Divines often call the Scriptures an undoubted principle the first principle you think they hold this principle like the first principles in Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable because they are of themselves as evident as any reason you can bring to make them more evident Ans No I had better reason for it than the expressions of their own Divines although we need no more if they in effect confesse as much as will serve us in the dispute But it is impossible for them or any other to fix a foot in Divinity but upon this ground or else we shall have no other assurance for the last resolution of faith than what we have in kind for Virgil's or Cicero's works Yea moreover their own Divines give this character of the Scripture because it is true of it it is not true because they say it and yet if it were true because they say it we make use of the Conclusion Or if it be an unquestioned principle because it is already granted to be God's word by all parties then why doth my Adversary call this into question which is the subject of the question and by all parties granted And also this makes it to be a common principle that it is granted by all parties And therefore are we to be tryed by it as by a common principle and not by the Church which is not granted by all parties to be that we should be tryed by specially if it be assumed that the Roman Church is the onely Church for then there will be a double Controversie one in thesi whether all faith is ultimately to be resolved by the Church and then another in hypothesi whether the Roman be the Church But we now put together that which he distinguisheth the Scripture is an undoubted principle and the first principle but not as the principle of Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable c. We discourse thus That which is indemonstrable is as the principle of Sciences but that which is as evident as any reason can be brought for it to make it more evident is indemonstrable therefore is it as a principle of Sciences The proposition is with my Adversary the propertie of the first principles in Sciences The Assumption is with my Adversary the very ratio formalis indemonstrabilitatis so then if the Scripture to be the word of God be as evident as any reason that can be brought for it to make it more evident then we have what we now contend for Now then if the Scripture cannot be demonstrated to be the word of God by the Church a priori then is it as evident as any reason can be brought for it but verum prius for the Church must be demonstrated by the Scriptures as we have often proved And if the Scripture were demonstrated by the Church a priori then were the Church the cause of Scripture which they themselves do not say and therefore may we give a reason of the Church by the Scripture and not infallibly of the Scripture by the Church and therefore is it as a prime principle in Sciences indemonstrable And yet my Adversary would circumvent me in the next number and bring me into a circle thinking that I am bound to give another proof by the Spirit why by the Spirit I do believe that the Scripture is the word of God but we stop him at first before he goes his rounds for he supposeth that which is not to be supposed that the testimony of the Spirit is not sufficient to make it self good to us of it self and that therefore we need another revelation secure from all illusion to ascertain me the former Ans This is little lesse than trifling for first we say not this internall testimony is proveable to others faith objective is proveable by Scripture but faith subjective is not proved but somewhat shewed by a good life for faith works by love as St. Paul And optimus Syllogismus bona vita as he said the best argument to others we have of faith is a good life But secondly we are as secure of the not being deceived in the testimony of the Spirit as the Apostles were in the kind Yea if we cannot be ascertained by the same testimony then how can the Council be assured that they are infallibly assisted by the Spirit Yea thirdly we are upon the higher ground for the assecuration of our faith because we resolve it into that which is antecedent to the Church and therefore have they lesse cause to put us upon intergatories why we believe the Scriptures for if we do not believe it for it self we have no reason to believe the Church To his Dilemma then Either I try the Spirit whether it be of God or no if I do not how am I then secure If I doe by what infallible means If I say by the Scripture you must needs laugh because you speak of the first act of belief c. Ans We say first that he misapplieth the text of the Apostle Trie the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 it is not meant of the Spirit of God I hope he thinks but of the Spirits of men which is our argument against them and therefore can we not sit down with absolute belief to what is proposed by man till we see it center'd upon the word of God which we believe infallibly came from God Secondly the tryall of the Spirits there injoined is by examining the matter whether proportionable to the word of faith but here he draws it to the triall of Scripture it self which is the rule of triall Thirdly though we do not try the testimony of the Spirit attesting to us the truth of Scripture yet the matter of Scripture may we compare with universall tradition which serves us for our use in the ministry of the Church not for our faith in the causality thereof Fourthly to be even with my Adversaries we return them their Dilemma they say we must believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Church which they say is infallible but we must infallibly know that this testimony of the Church is infallible by the Spirit of truth which leads us into all truth And this cannot be infallibly known but by a Revelation secure from all illusion And how come they by this revelation Either they try the Spirit or not if not how can they be secure If they doe by what infallible means If they say by the Church we must needs laugh because we speak of the first act of belief by which we first begin to believe the Church to be infallible Therefore all his agains are sent back again and the issue of all will come to this either this faith of the Scripture to be the word of God must be resolved into the testimony of the Spirit or of the
Church not of the Church because the testimony thereof is resolved into Scripture of which the question is yea if the testimony of the Church were infallible it must be infallibly proved by the Scripture and also that it is our rule of faith But thus we see the importunity of the Pontifician for their cause if we should say we resolve our faith of the Scriptures into the testimony of the Church they would never ask us a reason of our faith but when we say we resolve it into the internall testimony of the Spirit for our own private assurance they will not let us sit down with that but will demand a proof thereof although the testimony of the Church if it were the formall reason of our faith must be infallibly made good to us by the internall testimony of the Spirit but that which they would have us rest in for the Church we may not rest in for the Scripture And yet also have we other arguments from Scripture it self which have more moment in them unto the belief of Scripture than the meer testimony of the Church as Dr. White notes in the twenty sixth p. of the way to the true Church which is worthy to be perused also upon this account that there are severall testimonies collected even of Papists for the belief of Scripture without dependence upon the Church as of Canisius Bellarmin Biet Gregorie of Valence Stapleton some whereof we have quoted allready So then by my Adversaries own argument if we need not depend upon the Church for belief of Scripture then not for other points of faith The thirtieth Article hath nothing in it considerable but for us first that he saith it to be that most fundamentall Article that such and such books be infallibly God's word So then if it be the most fundamentall article then it is also fundamentall to the Church otherwise it is not that most fundamentall article but the Church must be the most fundamentall article And if it be fundamental to the Church then we resolve our faith in the highest principle and that which is primo primum and the Papists resolve themselves into that which is at best but secundo primum Our faith then being rooted in Scripture we can give a check to their vaunting of the priviledge of the Church as St. Paul did to the Jew but if thou boastest thou dost not bear the root but the root thee so the Church doth not bear the Scripture but the Scripture it And secondly we note in his thirtieth number what he saith Take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane We assume this infallible assistance is not yet proved and till it be proved the authority is but humane and yet doe we not scoff at the authority of the Church as he chargeth us but do make good use of it without infallibility And thirdly we might note that if some other had the answering of these papers he might tell them that they are mendicants of the question for first here they say that they ground this point upon the authority of the Church as being infallible And then again she hath an infallible authority which we account a fansie and yet again this infallibility alone must be that which groundeth not this perswasion but this infallible assent And yet again take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane These things so nearly belonging and essentially to the question are to be proved not supposed yet all must be supposed by them that so they might not seem to run at the ring and hit it as we may speak only the last hath a truth in it but also it supposeth in the drift a supposition for their use But at the last we have an appearance of an argument We have no other infallible ground left us but the authority of the Church assisted by the Holy Ghost since the Scripture hath no where revealed which books be Scripture which not Ans To this we say three things first that the argument is no way cogent because there is no necessity of either if we can be assured by the Holy Ghost that these books be Canonicall And if we cannot how did the Church at first assure it self that they were Canonicall So then Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is Secondly unlesse they prove the authority of the Church better they had better have left this out for otherwise there is no ground of faith unlesse our ground be admitted if this be a true Dis-junctive proposition that either the Scripture must set down which books be Canonicall which not or else the Church in the proposall must be infallible And yet if the Scripture should have set down which books were Canonicall it must be resolved whether that book wherein they were set down was Canonicall by the Holy Ghost also Then thirdly if the disjunctive be not true then his discourse is false if it be true in the proposition then we assume against them that the Scripture hath no where revealed whether the Church is infallible and therefore there is no other way to know it to be infallible but by it selfe So then it must prove the testimony of the H. G. by it self and if it can then may we prove the testimony of the Holy Ghost concerning Scripture by it selfe if not where will they set up In the 31. Num. he would squat Num. 31. and deceive the chase by a distinction which will not stay him from running round in the proving of Scripture by the Church and the Church by Scripture He sayes No Sir you never heard me give this reason unlesse it were when I spake to one who independently of the Church do professe himself to believe the Scripture to be God's word as you do And this is the effect of this Number for his defence and of those Divines who do not deale thus in proving the Church by the Scripture with all those who have not admitted the Scripture as infallible for they first prove the authority of the Church and that independently of the Scripture to be infallible Answ This covering is too short and indeed not sound for I am not bound to take notice how they prove it to others but how they prove it to me If they prove it thus to me then by their owne confession they are included in a circle And they prove it thus to me because I hold the Scripture to be God's word independently of the Church and so he saith of me as you do Secondly whereas he sayes If I be a Scholar I may know that their Divines do not answer so when they are put upon the question Why do you believe the Church I do answer that for my part I never pretended to be a Scholar as they do signanter I have neither head nor heart nor body nor books for the Controversies but yet this I
and none but this from the infallible Authority of Scripture hath no colour or shadow of Scripture or any thing like Scripture You must therefore ground your faith not upon Scripture but upon Reason Now the reason upon which you reject the Scripture is because you have a necessity of an external infallible Judge ever since the whole Canon was finished And for this onely reason without any Text you put the Scriptures sufficiency to expire and give up the ghost even after the finishing of the Canon Now if the reason for which you discard the Scriptures sufficiency be this because all points are not sufficiently cleared by Scripture then there can be no other prudent reason for which you in this one point may suppose the Scripture to be sufficient than this that that one point namely that we are to repair to the Church for all things necessary to salvation cannot be infallibly ascertain'd by the Church And therfore there is a greater necessity to have recourse to the sufficiency of Scripture undoubtedly infallible in all points which doth not causally bring forth their opinion of the Church Let me put them to it Doth the Scripture bring forth their opinion of the Church or doth it not If it doth not what hold have they for the Church And why do they make use of the Scripture to give Letters of Credence to the Church If it doth then there is an end of this Controversie Now the two inferences he would have me mark as clearly deduced from my principles are grounded but upon a supposition and therefore not to be marked but returned upon his concession First That all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture for no point more necessary than this without which there is no coming to the belief of any thing in the Church and yet this point is not plainly set down in Scripture nor that the Church is infallible obscurely Yea whereas he saies the Scripture sends us to the Church the Universal Church doth send us to the infallible Scripture for our necessary direction And this would give them satisfaction if it could serve their turn Moreover the second thing which he would have me mark halts upon the same unequal ground of supposing me to affirm what was but supposed Yet also we can send it home again and I can say that their former concession spoken of before doth overthrow that principle which is the ground-work of their faith For if there be a greater necessity to acknowledge the direction of Scripture in things necessary for as much as concerns this one point of the Church because this one point in particular is less clear of it self that grand principle of theirs which is or must be their principle evidently appeareth false namely that the Testimony of the Church is evidently seen by its own light which must be or else they are all undone And again how is it possible that there should be a greater necessity on the one side to have recourse to the Scripture for the infallible direction of the Church because it cannot be proved infallible by it self and yet on the other side this point of all other points hath this particular priviledge to be so manifest that it beareth witness of it self that it carrieth its own light with it So they may see what they get by taking a supposition for an Affirmation Tacitus's rule is good let nothing be thought prosperous which is not ingenuous Some other lines he hath in this Section to tell me what he hath done before and I have undone But as to a passage which I used out of Bellarmine to confirm a Dilemma which he tells me here that he hath broken before lest the contrary should have been better discerned upon the place he referred me to Bellarmin l. 1. c. 1. In fine as much as I can reade the hand I made use of Bellarmin against new Revelations beside Scripture and therefore we cannot believe the Church for it self because we cannot believe it but by a Revelation and no Revelation beside Scripture as he disputes against the Anabaptists For my answer he puts me off to the former place I think in the end And there is little to the business He saies indeed in the end That we do receive the Prophetical and Apostolical Books according to the minde of the Catholick Church as of old it is laid out in the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent to be the Word of God Et certam ac stabilem regulam fidei and the certain and stable rule of faith Now I hope these latter words are for us For if these words be taken in their just and full sense then the cause is ours If the Scripture be the certain and stable rule of faith then it must be clear otherwise how is it a certain rule and therefore no need of an infallible Judge And it must be sufficient alwaies otherwise how is it a stable rule and so it excludes Traditions But sure that is not the Chapter because my Adversary saies in that place where he speaketh of the Maccabees in particular which he doth not speak of in the first That Chapter where he particularly speaks of the Maccabees is the fifteenth but there is nothing to the purpose neither Thus he puts me to the hunt lest he should be at a loss Well but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is surely in the tenth Chapter where at the end he answers as my Adversary doth to S. Ieroms Authority against the Booke of Maccabees But this is besides the Butt For that which I looked for to be answered out of Bellarmin was the other point of no revelation beside Scripture It is true that I did in the same place name Bellarmine as relating S. Ieroms differing from my Adversarie about the Book of the Maccabees But why should I expect an answer to Bellarmine in this testimony when he produceth it onely that he might refute it that which I should have had satisfaction in out of Bellarmine was spoken by him out of his own judgement But again why did not my Adversary save me the labour of looking up and down for the passage by giving me the entire words of the Cardinal there I might have thought my Adversary would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he proves rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he thought it was not requisite that I should finde the place because there are some adjacent words which I can improve He saies Ierome was of that opinion quia nondum Generale Concilium de his libris aliquid statuerat excepto Libro Judith quem etiam Hieronymus postea recepit Mark the words Because the General Council had not yet determined any thing of those Books except the Book of Iudith which also afterwards S. Ierome received So then it seems a General Council had before taken these Books into consideration namely that of Toby and Iudith and of the Maccabees and determined nothing but
for Iudith Then one of the Councils must erre either that which established Iudith and not the rest or that which established Iudith and the rest namely that of Carthage wihch my Adversary saies S. Ierome had not seen One thought them not fit to be declared Canonical another thought them to be fit And is not this a contradiction of Council to Council Again Bellarmine saies that S. Ierome did afterwards receive the Book of Iudith Now I desire to know how much time that after doth suppose for If S. Ierome had received it presently we should have heard of it if much time after as it might be by the words then the Authority of the Church seemed not to S. Ierome so intuitively to oblige as the Antagonists suppose Had he thought the Church infallible would he have stuck at it Do not the Romanists know the rule in Tacitus Qui de liberant desciverunt They which deliberate have already revolted What he would have me note by the way that the Fathers of the Council of Carthage did acknowledge the Maccabees for true Scripture it is no difficult matter to give account to For first he goes upon a false Principle that if those Fathers were of our Religion then we must make them agree with us in this prime Principle upon which we receive all Scripture as Gods infallible Word This is not so for my living Adversaries may know that one who hath defended our Religion hath been quoted to me as differing from me in this point and that is Mr. Chillingworth Though all that are of this opinion are like to be of our Religion yet all of our Religion it seems are not of this opinion For indeed the Protestant Religion supposeth the Scripture to be the Word of God as a common Principle and therefore also there should not have been any contestation about this point if our Adversaries had not been resolved to question all Religion which is not properly theirs Secondly Therefore they might have received Scripture upon the Authority of Universal Tradition which also abstracts from the Roman Impropriation Thirdly Since they had not Universal Tradition for those Apochryphal Bookes as it seems by S. Ierom we cannot neither upon that account be ingaged to receive them as Canonical Fourthly Since they did not receive them by Universal Tradition as appears also by Cyril of Ierusalem as before and since they are not to be discerned by their own light as my Adversaries will confess nor by the conditions of the matter what reason shall we have to receive them For if they say the Council was assisted by the Holy Ghost we ask what was it assisted as a Council or as such a Council if as a Council why had not the other the same Assistance if as such a Council how shall we discern which Council the Holy Ghost will assist unto infallibility Et solos credit habendos Esse Deos quos ipse colit N. 45. In this he is pleased to move again the same stone which will in the end return upon himself again For how came one Council to acknowledge the Maccabees and another not were not the former Council as well irradiated as the latter Yes they were more in all account but of my Adversary who is not in so good a capacity to grant that the Argument from Authority of the Church graduates its strength by the greater nearness to the Primitive For he holds an equal assistance of the Spirit to the Church at all times But the old saying was Quò antiquius eò melius And the rule is good Ut se habet simpliciter ad simpliciter ita magis ad magis maximè ad maximè if it be good as ancient then the more ancient the more good And this at other times is the advantage which the Romanists would take in claiming the credit of the Original Church to them And besides he might have considered that he had no reason to bring this about again because the reason of their reception as was said before is expressed to depend upon the custome of their being read in the Church which doth not make them or declare them to be Canonical unles in S. Ieroms distinction for the edifying of the people in manners not for confirmation of faith Well then if one Council might see what another did not without prejudice to the object then S. Ierome might not see or Luther what S. Austin did without prejudice to the credibility of Scripture Yea it is not yet proved that S. Austin accounted the Book of Maccabees as Canonical as other Books But this is actum agere And again he repeats what he hath not done Let them not trouble us for they have lost their strength And yet again S. Matthews Gospel N. 46. He had better have solidly proved which he sleightly puts off the proof of in the end of the last section that they do not prove the infallibility of the Church first by Scripture I assure them this is a Fort-royal and therefore this should be made good at all hands Well but let us see his Argument in the face about S. Matthews Gospel which he saies he hath forced a passage to Surely he had no such reason to rally and obtrude this Argument again and to be so confident of it as to say boldly that it cannot possibly by our Principles ever come to be believed with an infallible assent to be Gods true uncorrupted word Why not Nay here is all of this no proof We looked for a Spear like a Weavers Beam or else some new Sword whereby the Philistin thought to have slain David but here is none yet Yea Sâ—apleton shall sufficiently answer him with a contradiction as before who saies It is not absolutely necessary to Faith that it should be produced by the Authority of the Church but it may be caused immediately by the Spirit of God So then it is possible by our Principles to believe it with an infallible assent to be the Word of God And before a Church was formed how did the material Members believe any point of Faith then it is possible But then he slides to another way as he thought of urging hiâ— Argument and that is the Marcionites the Cerdonists and the Manichaeans do deny and others may come to deny the Gospel of S. Matthew to be Gods true Word Yea but this is another question It is one thing to believe it to be Gods Word and another to prove it to him that denies it to be Gods Word Now the question in hand is how we believe it to be Gods Word And therefore we say as to such we deal with them as we deal with others who deny any part of Scripture not by the Authority of the Roman Church and therefore the Romanists get nothing by this Argument but by Universal Tradition as a common Argument which rather makes a Scholastical Faith than a Faith Divine of proper name So that also he cannot reasonably
N. 50. Here he tels us of an argument in the 14 num of the former treatise with infallible faith this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he beggs the question And if they cannot prove the cause to be theirs with out our free graunt they are not like to have it And therefore this being denied him as before all that he would build thereupon must fall to wit therefore we must be assisted in this infallible knowledge by some other infallible means and no other infallible meanes can with any shadow of probability be said given to us but the infallible authority of the Church therefore her athority must be infallible as shall at large be shewed in the next chap. and then in the next after that that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman This is all wast and lost unles they could maintain it to be necessary charity in us to preserve their cause from starving by graunting that which it ought not to have And 2. Dato non concesto suppose there must be some other meanes of infallible deciding doubtful sense of Scripture I can make it a question whether they can plead the next right as if they came vacuam possessionem for the place may be ful by universal tradition which surely is not the same with the Roman Church for the whole surely is greater then the part and then also when you prove the Roman faith by universal tradition you would prove the Roman faith by the Roman and this is idem per idem And as for the 3. thing that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman which he saies he will prove in the last chapter surely if I may speak it without offence he does very well to refer it to the last for he may doe any thing before it But also since his supposition that we cannot be certain by the Scriptures infallibly of their own true sense in points necessary to salvation with infallible faith must fall without a better support we may be at our last already for if this be not good the other chapters make number And this number makes no weight He doth nothing in it but tell us that he hath done so and so which we interpret nothing Infallibility should not need many words In this N. 52. he would wipe off the suspicion of disrespect to Scipture in those termes he used and would lay a blame upon me for my censure of his words to this purpose His words were these if he would have given us a book for Iudge he would never have given us for our Iudge such a book as Scripture is which very often speaketh obscurely sometimes so prophetically that most would think it spake of the present time when it speaketh of the time to come that it speaketh of one person for example of David when it speaketh of another for example of Christ And much more I added to this effect that I might be rightly understood when I said that God would never have given us such a book for our judge To what of this he said in his former treatise I said Sir Let me have leave to speak affectionately to you Do not you see what disrespects of Scripture if not blasphemies your opinion doth miserably betray you to if you follow it Would any sober man let fall such words as if God had intended the Scripture for our judge such a book as Scripture is So you This I said And now he examins these words strictly and saies My adversary to avoide this argument so mangleth the sense that he may-make my words sound of a blasphemous disrespect reporting them as if I should have said if God had intended Scripture for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture Ans Surely this is a false charge that I have mangled his words for I have given the full sense of them And this may be demonstrated by denying of the end which he makes to be to avoide the argument For I do not see any such difficulty in the argument that I should decline it and fall upon the person This is not my mind or manner But I could find fault with his dealing with me even here for he puts together that which I did not put together For he saies I accused him of a blasphemous disrespect whereas I said disrespect if not blasphemies and also the termes if not blasphemies without a grain of charity might have been construed without an affirmation Nether doth he right me or clear himself in the prosecution of his defence For my words in all reason doe represent as much as if I had added what he said I should have added These words if God had intended a book for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture must connotate this sense that he would not have given us such a book as Scripture for our Iudge And therefore he needed not to quarrel upon the omission as if I had not dealt fairely with him consider it in the form of an hypothetical proposition if God had intended a book for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture is what need be added for our Iudge when it is understood of course They know the rule Quod necessario subintelligitur nunquam deest That which is necessarily understood is never wanting And therefore have I not done his words any injury by mangling them nor yet by interpretation of them still they seem to sound such an imperfect book as Scripture and must do so if they have full sense in them But also if we might say what S. Austin said of the Heretiques words Bene haec acciperentur nisi ab eo dicerentur cujus sensus notus est so here these words might be better construed if they were not spoken by such whose sense was known For unless the Scripture be a book imperfect in regard of matter what need of tradition unless the Scripture were imperfect in regard of cleareness what needed an infallible judge to decide controversies about the sense Therefore he cannot get clearely off Aqua haeret And surely he doth not helpe himself or his cause by a like case he puts if God had intended the Scripture for sole Iudge in Law controversies he would never have given us such a book as Scripture is for our Iudge Doth this passe any handsome and respective reflexion upon Scripture As if it were no fitter to decide controversies in Divinity then in the Law And do they not think that we may have more reason to be bold with them than they with Scripture if God had intended that we should have been absolutely determined in matters of faith by General Council would he have given us such a pack'd Council as the Council of Trent was And yet moreover all he saies is besides the mark For this we doe not contend for that the scripture is the sole Judge
intended by God for we do not say that it is fomally any Judge But we say that the Scripture doth so fully and so plainely set down things necessary so fully and so plainely that there is no necessity of tradition for more matter or of infallible Judge for more clear proposal of things necessary so that this which he saies is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench He saies yet is it not manifest that the Scripture may be a book as perfect as can be for the intent for which God made it This we may take for his proposition Then Bellarmin as before acknowledgeth it to be our rule against the Aanbaptists and therfore it is a perfect rule But elsewhere Bellarmin will have it to be but our commonitory then why doth he dispute it to be a rule against the Aanbaptists Whereas then my adversary would return the disgrace to Scripture upon me he does not or will not understand me for we do not say nor are bound to say that all necessary controversies are plainly decided by Scripture alone and that God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them and therefore we deny his consequences that since when it comes to the trial we are not able to shew any text of Scripture deciding many and most important controversies this in effect were to say God performed very insufficiently what he intended to doe by Scripture first we doe not say that all necessary controversies are plainly decided by Scripture for we say no controversies are necessary in point of necessary faith He puts in necessary controversies for necessary truths we say the Scripture plainly proposeth all necessary truths and he would bring us in saying that the Scripture plainly decides all necessary contoversies and therefore how can he say that we say God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them 2. Therefore we deny those points to be simply necessary to salvation which are not clearly proposed in Scripture 3. Whereas they say that the Scripture doth propose upon Gods intention the Church to be the infallible Judge in matters of faith and yet cannot show any text wherein this is clearly delivered they do dishonor God and Scripture and they dishonor God by accusing of Scripture as Nilus before In this number he holds the conclusion that expressions of Scripture are obscure in way of prophecy or type and that there is no certain mean of direction to the sense and then that therefore there must be an infallible Judge But nothing is answered to my answers about it And did he think that the Iewes did not understand the manner of expressions of the prophets in their own language or that David did not beare the type of Christ How else were they saved in the time before Christ And was the exact sense of every expression or type necessary such exceptions do not weigh And then again if there had been need in the time of the law of an infallible Judge for an infallible Illumination of dark expressions then if so dato non concesso what is this to the necessity of an infallible Judge in the times of the Gospel which is the old Testament revealed N 54. To passe by any slips in the former number by the scribe or otherwise we come to this paragr wherein he is not pleased to say any thing to what was replied about the several senses of Scripture But he would here corroborate his argument with Dr. Tailer's Judgment in his discourse of the liberty of prophecying And he saies he thinkes me not to be so much esteemed amongst our own Clergy or Laity as he I confesse it Neque de me quisquam vilius sentit quam ipse as one said But though this is very true that my authority is not comparable to his yet it was not rational for my adversary to diminish me because it makes a prejudice to his cause that so weak a man can oppose it and therefore I can spare him in this kind Let my adversary be the Champion of his cause And yet it may be the Reverend and learned Authour he names is not allwaies pleased with whatsoever he said in that book And yet also we can grant what is said by the Doctor who does not say that no Arguments can be drawn from Scripture but from those Scriptures which have many senses neither doth he say that those texts which have many senses do contain points necessary to salvation nor doth he say that if they did contain points necessary they are not elsewhere explained by more clear texts or may be explained for so he should disagree from St. Austin as before But to say no more let the Doctor have the honour with all my heart of the umpirage of the controversie in the example which my adversary hath put Take for an example those four words This is my body Indeed some there are which would have five words hoc est enim corpus meum And also it may be said that he may exceed in his number of interpretations of these words unless he takes in their own many differences hereabouts in the manner and time of the conversion they will hardly come up to two hundred divers interpretations And whereas he saies that we say that they are spoken in a figurative sense and not in their natural sense we can answer that we do deny the literal sense and do not deny that the figurative sense may be said in a good sort natural to the Sacramental use by reason of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is betwixt the signe and the thing Signified And much more might be said herein but let this point be compromised to the doctour in that excellent book which he hath lately written on purpose He saies all that I can say and more Here he would make good another Argument of his the Scripture useth the imperative mood as well when it counsels as when it commands He asks now what infallible means we have to know what is recommended to us as a counsel or as a precept to be kept under pain of damnation We answer first supposing the doctrine of counsels to be right and sound yet are they in no great danger by the uncertainty whether such a thing is proposed by way of counsels or precept since they hold it to be a thing of greater perfection to performe a counsel Therefore if they take a thing of counsel for a thing of command there is no danger surely in doing more then they are simply commanded to So then if this were all it would be no such difficulty as to practise because if they doe whatsoever is proposed pro imperio in the imperative mood there is no danger if it be commanded it was necessary if counselled there is greater perfection and an accidental reward above the essential God can distinguish which is which though they cannot and surely will if their opinion be true reward them accordingly And if there be any
it seems to stand his ground which Bellarmin and Peron and the Rhemists stand upon but also because the promise is made to the Catholique Church Thus then their Church is not the Catholique Church the promise is made to the Catholique Church therefore not to them The Roman Church may be a nest of errours idolatrous superstitious wickedly assuming the authority of an infallible Tribunal without sufficient authority though the Catholique Church be not such nor doth assume such authority as the errours of a particular Church are not charged duly upon the universal Church so the privileges of the universal Church are not infeoffed upon a particular Well but now we will do as he bids us and be patient till he shew in the next chapter how this concernes the Roman Church But shall I have my five answers answered then for he saies here that I begin to say nothing against him untill I begin to say sixthly So then I must be thought to say nothing against him because he hath nothing to say to what I said in those five answers The sixth answer then he takes notice of and it came in thus he had asserted the Church secure from all damnative errour I took upon advantage this as taking those words distinctively that though it was not free from all errour yet from errour damnative And I gave him good reason why he should take those words so because otherwise they are not like to be the Church unto which that priviledge is granted Upon this I argued against their infallibility according to the opinion also of Mr. Knot Therefore he now waves this debate and saies he argued ad hominem but we will hunt him out of this refuge too They cannot argue thus out of our principles because we say this of the universal Church not of a particular Church No Church of one denomination is secure from damnative errour therefore cannot they ultimately improve what we grant to the universal Church for their use But 2. He could not yet from hence conclude that no body shall be damned for following the guidance of the Church For not to say again that this is not appliable to the Roman Church which is not the Catholique Church yet may we not follow the universal Church absolutely because it is not in all points infallible For so consequently we might be bound to follow errour Yea 3. Since according to our principles it is not exempted from all errour according to Mr. Knot 's principles it cannot be our guide Yea 4. To Follow the Church in an errour may be damnative though the errour may not be damnative because another not knowing it to be an error may hold it without damnation but if I knew it to be an error yet follow it I incurre damnation because I resist a known truth And 5. Since the universal Church cannot shew its charter of being exempted from all errour it is not necessary for her alwaies to have such a visible existence as is necessary to afford a guidance So then whereas he askes me by what Logique do you inferre that because the Church is secured from all damnative errour therefore according to my doctrine she is not secured from other errours I answer it is very true simpliciter loquendo that the affirmation of one species doth not allwaies include a negation of the other namely when that which is affirmed is not a constitutive difference thereof But considering his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving him good reason why he should mean them so I could not be blamed for guessing that he meant them so Yea the words which he hath used in this chapter for expressing the priviledge of the Church are yet so put togeher that they may seem suspiciously to bear such a construction Neither does he here positively deny as would become his confidence this distinction To put it then to an issue I shall put them to their choice how those words shall be understood whether distinctively or by way of epithet If distinctively then my consequences stand good upon that ground If not then have they such a task upon them which all the Roman wit and industry will never throughly performe for first then must they say that either all errour is damnative which indeed should have been proved upon former urging as much reason for all sins to be mortal as all errours to be damnative and more too since sin hath the guilt of the will simple errour hath not or else there may be errours not damnative which makes for us against the necessity of an infallible judge as to all points or that the Church cannot erre at all And then here will be a double labour to prove and indeed a double errour to say First that it hath not erred 2. that it cannot erre If the latter then to be sure the former indeed but if the fonmer then not presently the latter Yea if they will then stand to it that the Church is secure from all errour whatsoever then their Church is not the Church And the consequence is good and strong for that Church can erre because it hath erred in the Latin Bible in the supernumerary Canon of Scripture in the point of Transubstantiation in Communion under one kind In their Counsails as hath been shewed already and in the point of merit Ex condigno if the 30. Canon of the 6. Sess of the Trent Council be compared with Rom. 8.18 The Canon of the Council speaks an Anathema to him that shall say that the good works of a justified man do not vere mareri truly merit increase of grace consecution of eternal life if they shall die in grace and also increase of glory The Canon of the Scripture saith I account that the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory wich shall be revealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not weigh with Now whether Scripture be our rule of faith or not this must be an errour since they acknowledge the Scripture to be true and infallible For whatsoever is contradictory to truth is false this is contradictory to Scripture which is true In this they have erred from the Latin Fathers in the sence of the word from the Greek Fathers in the matter and from the Scripture which is our rule and was the rule of the Church until a Church rose up which would not be ruled And let them take notice too that sufferings are the best part of our obedience and if they are not worthy how should good actions merit More errours of their Church might be named but one errour with them is enough to contradict infallibility and to discharge us of following their Church He saies then I quarrel with one of the Cardinal vertues even Prudence herself Ans I think I may quarrel with one of the Cardinal vertues Prudence is one of the Cardinal vertues in Morality and one of the Cardinal vertues in Divinity Prudence is the politique
locall Praelats will not allow the use of Translations but to them whom they are secure of not to change their Religion which is as much much as to blinde them and then to give them leave to see Further use of Scripture is not an abuse unles the Antient Fathers exhorted the people in the reading of Scriptures to an abuse and he was much mistaken in the saying that we see the sad effects of it it is a fallacy of accident Our Ministers are as rightly ordained and canonically licenced to Preach as their Priests to say Masse and more too unless they could prove that office better And yet a simple contradiction is also better than a simple negative Upon our word the people may rely as well as their people upon the Priests and somewhat more upon the former considerations of an impossibility of Faith in the truth of their being Priests And yet our Ministers are not masters of their Faith but helpers of their joy as the Apostle saies of himself also the people do not simply rely upon them but believe by them And then he comes to the occasion of this debate betwixt us namely because that Noble Person carped at our blind obeying our Priests and believing them whereas all of our Religion could go to the fountain Ans Whether the words of that Noble Person were such as he expresseth them I cannot say but taking the Translation to be so far Scripture as that it agrees with the Original so far are they the Fountain not in language but insense And so they go to the Fountain oppositely to the Doctrine of the Church though not as oppositly to Translations And as for that which was said by that Noble Person of blind obeying is not here denied and we know that this blind obedience is commended by the Jesuite for the right and Christian obedience And their implicit Faith must be blind obedience upon two accounts First because they ought not to examin whether what the Priests say to them doth agree with the Doctrine of the Church and secondly they cannot examine it But he excepts against that Fountain but alas when that fountain which they conceive themselves to drink to their eternal health is so poisoned as I shewed in my last Ch. that millions of millions as your own Broughton saith run to hell flames by occasion of this corruption Good words He could not certainly say so unless he hath it from a Pope and Council And doth he take a passionate Hugh to be as credible with him as Cardinal Hugh And I think also the main thing for which Hugh Broughton was offended with our Translations was about the descent into Hell which by the Trent Council should seem not to be so necessary for they make no mention of it in their Creed And also if the sentence proceeds sufficiently upon Hughs words then their Latin is poysoned more as it should seem more by Isidor Clarius one of theirs And my Adversary might have remembred that we might as well slight Hugh Broughton in a singularity as he did Isidor Clarius And it seems the danger by Translations is not so great because he saies I may most truly say that far more perish by misunderstanding whilst they follow their Ministers and their own private judgement of discretion that which is truly Translated then perish by the corruption of that which is falsely Translated Ans This comes loosely from him also If it were obscure the Translation might miss if not how could they be in danger of perishing If they follow their Ministers or their own judgement without weighing the Scriptures they may erre as the Romanist does by blind obedience But if they compare the Doctrine of the Ministers with that of Scripture by their judgment of discretion as the Bereans did that which was spoken by St Paul and as he would have them compare the Doctrine of our Ministers with the Authority of their Church by their judgment of discretion they are in no such peril of damnation That which is not known without great difficulty may be unknown without great danger Otherwise we make God they may think an hard Master Thus they perish for not hearing that Church which their own Scripture bids them hear whereas in doing that which God bids there can be no danger of errour great or small Ans My Adversary is very importunate without new Arguments If he means that the Scripture bids us hear the Church universally as to Faith he begs the question If to hear as in point of trespass or so as not to contemn he fights with his own shadow as being ignorant of the Elench And so of the other clause if he means it so that God bids us absolutely do as the Church bids us there is the same fault in the discourse Better may we return it to them They perish because they will not hear the Scripture which the Scripture and the ancient Church bids them hear whereas in following Scripture there can be no danger of errour great or small and since also the Church can have no credible Authority but from the Scripture neither hath he proved the contrary whatsoever he saies and therefore he does well now to tell us that the Scripture bids us hear the Church He saies the doctrine of the Church is Gods Law Ans This is a kind of cryptical proposition I am sure Gods Law should be the doctrine of the Church but he means it for his use whatsoever the Church reacheth is Gods Law What is Gods Law in recto He speaks as boldly as if being but yet a private man he could not speak under infallibility So then we need not look any further for Gods Law and the Scripture then will not onely be insufficient for our direction to heaven as they say but not necessary which sometimes they will grant It will not be necessary neither as a rule as Bellarmin sometimes nor as a commonitory And we may wonder why amongst their Counsails they did not reckon this for one namely to use Scripture since upon this account we are not bound to it under peril of damnation but onely they will not allow it such perfection as to Counsails But then if the Church bids us not to read Scripture or bids us not to read Scripture it is not Gods Law and it is Gods Law but it is Gods Law that we should look into Scripture To the Law and to the Testimony Search the Scriptures saith Christ If the Church teacheth that we must worship Images or buy Images it must be Gods Law against Gods Law of the second Commandement If the Church bids us communicate under one kind it must be Christs Law against Christs Law And so God must contradict himself and Scripture must follow the sense of the Church as one of them is said to have said what a cause have they which hath need of so desperate propositions And private Priests are farr more likely to teach them Gods Law by
Apostolical or that those who bring new doctrine are as well inspired as the Apostles the Roman Church shall now be Apostolical And if there were now as great a necessity of the infallible direction of the Church as there was in the times of the Apostles by them then why should not the Apostolical office have continued in the number of twelve and so all the Apostles should have had successours which they must not say who maintain the Monarchy of the Church Neither doth that instance of Iohn the Baptist teaching the Meâ—â—as which also the Scripture teacheth come up to the case First Because Iohn the Baptist was but a singular person but the Church now is considered under a promise of continual succession and as is pretended by them with the perpetual gift of infallibility therefore though there was Scripture then besides Iohns Testimony yet what need of it now if there be a constant infallibility in the Church Secondly There is a difference in the case ex parte Scripturae in regard oâ— Scripture which was not then compleated therefore there might be more necessity of St. Iohns Testimony and of the voice from heaven and of the Testimony of miracles But now the Canon is consigned what need of the infallible direction of the Church and if there be an infallible direction standing in the Church what need of a standing rule it may serve for a commonitorium as the Cardinal So the Scripture shall give us but an application of the Churches doctrine The Scripture that must not be a suâ—ficient rule the Church that is the direct and plain way that fools cannot erre They may erre by the Scripture they cannot erre by the Church Therefore in effect not only will there be no need of Scripture but there would be need of none But more closely That which is not of use without the Church and that which the Church may be without is not necessary The Scripture is of no use without the Church and the Church may be without Scripture Therefore according to their premises the Scripture should not be necessary and how farre is it from blasphemy to say that the Scripture is not necessary If to accuse Scripture be to accuse God as Nilus before Then to say there was no need of Scripture is to accuse God of inspiring so many Pen-men for no necessary purpose For although after all means of Faith still millions do not believe as he saies yet since according to their doctrine no sense of Scripture in point of Faith is to be believed but as taken from the Church since the Word not written takes up so much of necessary matter since the pâ—tfecter and the wiser are to be sublimated by Traditions since the common people are not to be conversant in Scripture in a knowen tongue what necessary purpose doth the Scripture serve to It is true superflua non nocent as the rule is and Utile per inutile non vitiatur true But yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their principles the Scripture will be superfluous For that which is more than is necessary is not necessary that which is not necessary what is it Therefore if any of their men should be found to be traditores Bibliorum as some were of old the Roman Donatists would never make a separation from them He goes on The Church is not more Enthusiastical now than she was for four thousand years before she had all the promises which Christ made her of an assistance which should be at least as speacill and full as she ever had before Ans This is positively no answer but somewhat by compare we press it The Church in that time did not de communi challenge immediate inspiration therefore that Church which doth so now is more Enthusiastical Secondly It is a begging of the question since there is not now that need after the Canon is compleated Thirdly We return them their argument what assistance the Church had formerly it hath now the Church formerly had not de communi in fallible assistance therefore not now For the Prophets and the Apostles and the writers of the Scripture are not rationally to be included in the common account of the Church in our case Let them chuse which they will stand to If they put them into the promiscuous account of the Church let them now shew us such a Church If they account them extraordinary let them shew ordinarily such And he confounds himself in what follows Before she delivered only what she had received by tradition and by Scripture She hath received Scripture by Tradition too hath she not Why doth he then divide Scripture from Tradition in the way of its coming to us For the chief reckoning they make to us of Scripture is upon the credit of Tradition But he means Tradition ex parte materiae it may be because they think Tradition conteins other matter than Scripture equally to be believed But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Interpreting which according to the sense truly intended by the Holy Ghost the same Holy Ghost doth assist her so that here is no new Revelation claimed to be made to her but an infallible assistance to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed Ans He cannot well clear himself of Enthusiasm upon the account of Tradition Any thing beside the word written equally to be believed is matter of Enthusiasm But they pretend somewhat beside the word written equally to be believed therefore are they in danger of Enthusiasm And I do not see well how they can answer it But now he endeavours to purge himself of this accusation in point of interpretation of Scripture They say they do not interpret Scripture by revelation but by infallible assistance Well But how shall we blind souls be assured infallibly of this infallible assistance We may not examine it by the judgment of private discretion may we If we may then this is gained Must we believe it Yes Why Because God hath it to be his will that we should absolutely believe the Church Shew me where By the Church that is in question By the Scriptures what Texts Those produced But the question is whether they are rightly interpreted according to the true sense What will they say now Nothing but the Church hath infallible assistance And this they must believe by a revelation without Scripture and this is an Enthusiasm And the Roman church pretending this priviledge above other Church's makes it a private revelation Again though there are several waies of revelation yet I would aske how many waies there are of infallible assistance distinguished from revelation let them tell us or else conclude against themselves that they must have the sense of Scripture interpreted by revelation because by infallible assistance The pen-men of Scripture they had infallible assistance but that was by revelation Let us know what infallible assistance there is without a revelation specially since Stapelton and some others likely will have the
This manner of speech might serve us against their infallibility but no speech serves infallibility but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And all those testimonies were given to the Iewes as ill as they were disposed Ans he seemes to mistake what I said formerly about indisposition to receive infallibility For I spoke of it in order to those who should receive the gift of it for the Church and he now seems to speake of it in order to the people But 2. Suppose there were as good a disposition the possibility hereof cannot conclude the same necessity of the same assistance and some of their men are named by some of ours for denying any such disposition towards such a measure of the spirit as formerly was given That the Scripture hath still the same certainty he saies categorically is apparently false speaking as you speake in order to assure us c. Ans All his reasons are invalid For as for the first that I confess some books of Scripture were formerly not acknowledged by all which now are received this is of no weight because it is sufficient to my discourse that they have still the same certainty from the time of their general reception And 2. They have in themselves allwaies the same credibility as well as his Traditions as he hath noted before And that many and a good many books of Scripture are quite lost is first in those termes at least a supposition Whether any be lost is yet work for Tishbi specially whether many much more whether a good many but it is obvious to a Romanist that denies the Scripture to be sufficient to find it imperfect in the matter In ingenuity he should have said nothing herein lest he should be interpreted for his own ends As the Socinian who denies Christs satisfaction to prove his opinion denies Christ's Divinity that so the satisfaction should not be sufficient so the Romanist lest the Scripture should be thought to be a sufficient rule saies a good part of it is lost Thus with their honesty they have lost their modesty Secondly let them again consider how much prejudice comes to their Church which they say is the depositary of Christian Doctrine upon the loss of a good many books of Scripture Thirdly yet dato non concesso suppose so yet that which doth remain is surely as sufficient as the old Scripture without all the new Fourthly my words do not engage me in this debate because they are of a capacity to be understood of that Scripture which doth remain Fifthly If any be lost me thinks as the Sibills books the rest should bear a better price And as to his other exceptions about the sense of Scripture about the Sacrament of the Eucharist or of Baptism whether to Infants or to be a Priest or a Bishop was to have power to sacrifice or absolve or not we say first that we have said enough already And we say that we need not say any more in these points till they make good these postulates First whether the exact knowledge of these points be necessary to Salvation Secondly whether if not they can yet prove an infallible Judge in all points of controversie appointed to us by God And as to the last they are first to prove a real sacrifice in the time of the Gospel otherwise there will be no object for a special act of a Priest as such And absolution simply we deny not their absolution to be necessary to salvation and that it can make attrition to be as good as contrition are tasks for them to prove who affirm them And as for that he saies that then they had the Apostles themselves or the known Disciples of the Apostles to tell them the meaning of those words He does not well consider what he saies if they gave the sense of those places which are obscure where are these interpretations why have we not a tradition of them if not they say nothing if so they must derogate from the Church's fidelity because it hath justly communicated and handed to us traditions of other matters then are written and not the sense of those Texts which are written 2. We are yet entirely able to hold the buckler in the defence of our position that there is no such need of an infallible exposition of those Texts which contain points necessary for faith or practice The water where the lambe might wade was clear enough then and had been yet clear enough had not the great Fisher troubled the waters for better fishing If the point of the diall be not fixed they may vary the shadow but the sun keeps it regular motion So if their gnomon be loose they may make the time to go for them but the sun of righteousnes Jesus Christ the same yesterday and to day and for ever as the author to the Hebrews speaks doth in an uniforme and regular course shine in the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ by the twelve Apostles is equally set for all times only the Roman makes the variation who would have the Scripture follow the Church and not the Church the Scripture We need not then yet their Oedipus who hath a foot so great that he must wear a slipper The following words in this section are somewhat cloudy and they do need a clue to shew us their right connexion His drift seems in them to be this to make me destroy my self by two positions first that the Church is secure from damnative errour though not from all simple errour the second this Heresie consisted in opposition to clear Scripture Ans One would have thought that a bad conclusion could not lawfully be begotten of these two positions since specially the second is such as was antiently held by those who do understand distinctly points of divinity And also I had thought once that he had granted the former though now pro re naâ—a he doth think otherwise I am sure he had more reason to stand to it then to abide the perill of the negative Well but what from hence Whence all those must needs be Hereticks who opposed clear Scripture Therefore all those who hold those prime points in which you and we differ with us against you were hereticks for they held these points which you say are against clear Scripture Ans The Church is considerable in the quantity of it so it is universal or particular it is considerable in the quality invisible or visible the Church invisible is distributively secure from all damnative errour the universal visible may be secure from all damnative errour This we say still But by what engine is this drawen into his conclusion which he saies should proceed partly from this position But 2. What if we grant all that those who have been with them against us in the points of difference were Hereticks it is but like for like for they familiarly give us no other name then Hereticks And I think we shall do very few Learned and sober men any harme
our infallible and certain guidance from them But ecce iterum Crispinus some of you will hove no words at all necessary to the administration of Baptism some will have such kinds of words and others words very different from them in substance He makes our differences not onely by occasion but for ought I see by fiction also for I know none that would have no words or different in substance or if they would let them answer for themselves The essentiall form of words as to Baptism is as plainly set down as can be by words in Scripture in the 28 of St. Mat. 19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And if any differ from this form then my Adversaries argument was nought whereby he would prove things not to be plainly set down because there were differences about them for what can be more plainly set down than the form of Baptisme and yet he talks of differences thereabout In the third and fourth Paragr he prosecutes the same impertinencies to the question in hand And untill he proves all the points he doth instance in to be such as are necessary to salvation in the same punctualities I have nothing to do but to deny them to be such as without which in formalitatibus there is no salvation Vbi eadem ratio eadem lex According to the proportion of their use is the proportion of their appointment in Scripture As for such things as are of strict necessity to certain men of certain states and degrees in the Church It goes upon a false supposition that what is of strict necessity to certain men of certain states and degrees in the Church should be of strict necessity to salvation nothing is of strict necessity to salvation but that which is necessary to all unto salvation Now it is not necessary to all unto salvation to know what is of strict necessity to some certain men of certain states and degree And secondly little in reason can be said to be of strict necessity to some certain men of certain degrees and states in the Church first because many nations have diversified these usages and secondly because no generall Council have descended to the binding of all absolutely thereunto nay indeed not to the proposing of them And as for the forme of ordaining Bishops in words or actions the way in our Church is as full according to proportion in Scripture as any other and our Bishops have been also Canonically ordained by three Bishops notwithstanding the slanders against it and let them prove that what is in this case appointed in Councils is more necessary than what is done in our consecration or else they do nothing They must also know whether they can lawfully permit women to baptize at all or baptize in necessity only and not out of it Ans First it is plain in Scripture that no women did baptize Secondly that baptizing and teaching are committed to the same persons as before St. Mat. 28.19 20. Now women are forbidden to teach by St Paul therefore may they not baptize Thirdly how can mans authority allow that which God hath restrained so as to make it necessary to salvation that this allowance should be made and also that all should know it And fourthly it is yet to be proved whether there be such absolute necessity of baptism as to dispense herein in case of necessity since St. Thomas was of opinion as was urged in the Trent Council that before Christ children were saved by the faith of the Parents and without the Sacrament as it must be there meant p. 239. of the History I know some speak favorably in this point not allowing it should so be done but as not annulling it when done but my Adversary should first have made the Substratum sound and good namely the absolute necessity to salvation For if we should be ruled by St. Austin in this matter then we should be ruled by him in all points which they themselves will not stand to for they withstand him in more particulars than we as hath been noted by Mr. Chillingworth And besides his authority we might confront with Tertullian's And whether they may permit women or Lay-men to blesse the bread and distribute the Sacrament seeing that Christ said do this all not plainly expressing how far these his words extended themselves Surely my Adversary intended me rather good measure than good weight in such argumentations St. Paul doth one would think determine this question if any in the first Ep. to the Cor. 4.1 Where he saies of Ministers in general that they are the Dispensers of the Mysteries of God And then is this their blessing or distributing if it might be allowed necessary to salvation And for his argument it is improperly produced for it is spoken to them not as Officers of the Church in administring but as members of the Church in receiving and this might he have taken notice of if he would have quoted the text intirely for it is said Do this in remembrance of me St. Luke 22.19 This belongs to every one in the act of participation And then again as he leaves out fomething not for him so he adds somewhat which should be for him for he reads it do this all whereas all is not in the Evangelists nor in the first Ep. to the Cor. 11. Again if it be uncertain whether our Savior meant this for women and Laiques do this all then since by these words they would urge Christs institution of the Sacrifice Laymen and women should have the highest or might have if the Church pleased the highest dignity in their account in the Church and that is conficere corpus Christi And then the story of Pope Joan should be accounted of by them as more tolerable If she might do the office of a Priest she might also do the office of a Pope Whether lawfull mission of Priests can be granted by Laymen or no. What And must all we upon necessity of salvation know infallibly this whether this Priest was sent by a Layman though a Layman hath not nor can have any authority to send and the Roman in this gives more liberty to Laymen than the Scripture or our Churches yet is it necessary for every one to salvation to know whether such an one which doth the offices of a Minister is legally sent or not Must every Layman examine his Commission And our Saviors institution herein is our rule who gave power to others by that authority which he had received from his Father as St. Mat. 28.18 Authoritate mihi commissa all authority is given me in Heaven and on earth goe ye therfore Now Laymen have no authority and therefore they cannot give any authority according to the rule also And what kind of ordination is necessary for their function and what commission is necessary for their lawfull missions and also what power to make that is to consecrate and administer Sacraments
these are plainly enough set down in Scripture if the Roman Church had not disturbed the clear waters for the chief Fisher and if not the Church by positive law cannot appoint that which is absolutely necessary to salvation All things that are of Divine right are not simply necessary to salvation to be sure then what is not of Divine but positive right as the Romans have also distinguished is not simply necessary And therefore whereas he says there are endles Controversies about them I am of his opinion in my sense of the words for they are to no end amongst those who have a sober mind to be directed in them by Scripture at least they are to no end as in order to our dispute because they come not within compasse of absolute necessity to salvation It may be necessary to know how these are to be ordered that they may be ordered rightly but this is not absolutely necessary to salvation yea again if these things were left to the Church we must take the order before the Councils otherwise the Church before the time of Councils had wanted that which was necessary and therefore indeed are they not necessary or else God had been wanting to them in necessaries A third sort of things necessary not plainly set down as he thinks we have in his fourth number Num 4. All being obliged to serve God in a true Church c. This is ambiguously delivered either as in sensu composito being in a true Church they are obliged to serve God in it or are bound to finde out the true Church and then to serve God in it Now though both belong to our duty yet both are not equally necessary because it is possible in that which is not a true Church if so many things be necessary to a true Church as they would have salvation may be had by simple ignorance and gerall repentance And I hope some were saved before a Church with all the integrants of a true Church was framed But in a true Church no man can be saved without serving of God The Church of the Donatists was not accounted by St. Austin nor my Adversary a true Church yet St. Austin did not deny but some might be saved in it Now this is understood by my Adversary in the latter way namely that every one is bound to finde out the true Church and to serve God in it for so it followeth Having a lawfull succession of true Pastors truely ordained themselves and truely ordaining the Priests who must be known to administer true Sacraments in their true matter and forme Preaching also the word of God by lawfull mission Ans Now me thinks the Romans with their mountains should have relation to Montanus who fansied that the Paraclet did by priviledge come into him to make up what was wanting to salvation by inspiration For we must have infallible notes of a Church which the word of God in Scripture hath not appointed to us And we must have things necessary to salvation which the Scripture hath not made necessary yet they must be necessary to salvation for their use Certainly as he gives well the cognisance of a good man so may we also make use of it for a good Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we ought not to judge honest men by their performances but by their purpose so we ought to esteem good Christians not by their happinesse to finde but by their purpose to finde out the true Church which cannot reasonably be done by a lawfull sucession First because this is accidentall not as to salvation onely but as to a true Church and therefore can be no certain and universall rule for how came the first Church which was originall to the Descendants to be a true Church yea secondly how will the true Church be a true Church according to their principles in the time of Antichrist when there is not like to be according to their profession almost any face of a Church How shall it then be discerned by a lawfull succession of Pastors Thirdly this cannot be characteristicall of the Roman Church which they would have to be the onely true Church because the Greek Church may challenge this priviledge also Yea fourthly it is possible that a false Church may so fairly plead a lawfull succession as the Church of the Donatists who had also Bishops as to those who should come a long while after them that it could not be easily discerned by common people and therefore this is not the way so plain and direct as that fools cannot err Yea fifthly we are not to discern true Doctrine by the persons but the persons by the Doctrine according to Tertullian as before and therefore if true Doctrine be not proved by succession as it cannot be because then it should be measured by the person we cannot conclude a true Church by the succession since all sober men will rather argue thus that is a true Church which professeth true Doctrine than that Church professeth true Doctrine because it hath a true succession of Pastors Yea sixthly did my Adversary mean what he said of a particular Church or of the universall Church Not of a particular Church sure for that cannot be the way and Judge of all Christians as he intended But then of the universall Catholick Church Well then he must mean that that is the true Catholick Church which hath a lawfull succession of Pastors namely of Bishops of Rome who is by them called signantly the Pastor of the Church This must be his meaning in reason because the lawfull succession of Pastors in particular Churches is by my Adversary necessary for themselves but not for the Catholick Church which can consist without those parts which are not true and therefore no parts And this is like to be his meaning by his opinion So then the Roman Church he would have here by the premisses to be the true Church as being supposed to have a lawfull succession of Pastors namely Bishops of Rome But how shall we give up our selves in absolute obedience to the guidance of the Roman Church if this were an infallible and constitutive mark of the true Church that it hath a lawfull succession of Pastors For no man can have so much as a morall certitude that there hath been in Rome from St. Peter an interrupted lawfull succession of Pastors much lesse can he have a Divine perswasion thereof For first it can never be proved by Scripture that St. Peter was at Rome I do not deny it that he was ever there but it is no object of faith And the Romanists are shrewdly put to it for a proof when to prove it they would interpret Babylon from which St. Peter writes to be Rome But then Secondly St. Peter should rather have derived the Priviledge of universall jurisdiction and infallible direction to Antioch as is abserved where he sate first seven years as Caranza sets it down and where Christians had their name